[Senate Report 107-224]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 522
107th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 107-224
======================================================================
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL,
2003
_______
July 26, 2002.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mrs. Murray, from the Committee on Appropriations,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany S. 2808]
The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 2808)
making appropriations for the Department of Transportation and
related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2003,
and for other purposes, reports favorably thereon and
recommends that the bill do pass.
Amounts of new budget (obligational) authority for fiscal year 2003
Amount of bill as reported to Senate.................... $22,251,162,000
Amount of budget estimates, 2003........................ 20,799,680,000
Fiscal year 2002 enacted................................ 18,900,670,000
C O N T E N T S
----------
SUMMARY OF MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS
Page
Total obligational authority..................................... 4
Program, project, and activity................................... 4
Accrual funding of retirement costs and post-retirement health
benefits....................................................... 4
TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary
Salaries and expenses............................................ 6
Office of Civil Rights........................................... 10
Transportation planning, research, and development............... 11
Transportation Administrative Service Center..................... 12
Essential Air Service and Rural Airport Improvement Fund......... 13
Minority Business Resource Center Program........................ 15
Minority business outreach....................................... 16
Transportation Security Administration
Summary of fiscal year 2003 program.............................. 21
U.S. Coast Guard
Operating expenses............................................... 26
Acquisition, construction, and improvements...................... 34
Environmental compliance and restoration......................... 37
Alteration of bridges............................................ 37
Retired pay...................................................... 38
Reserve training................................................. 39
Research, development, test, and evaluation...................... 39
Boat safety...................................................... 40
Federal Aviation Administration
Operations....................................................... 41
Facilities and equipment......................................... 44
Research, engineering, and development........................... 55
Grants-in-aid for airports....................................... 57
Federal Highway Administration
Limitation on administrative expenses............................ 64
Federal-aid highways............................................. 65
Appalachian development highway system........................... 74
Limitation on Transportation Research............................ 75
Nationwide Differential Global Positioning System................ 78
Bureau of Transportation Statistics.............................. 79
Liquidation of Contract Authorization............................ 79
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Motor carrier safety: Limitation on administrative expense....... 80
National motor carrier safety program............................ 83
Border enforcement program....................................... 84
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Operations and research.......................................... 87
Highway traffic safety grants.................................... 93
Federal Railroad Administration
Safety and operations............................................ 96
Railroad research and development................................ 97
Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Program........ 98
Next generation high-speed rail.................................. 99
Alaska railroad rehabilitation................................... 100
Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)... 100
Amtrak Reform Council........................................ 106
Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment Project................... 106
Federal Transit Administration
Administrative expenses.......................................... 107
Formula grants................................................... 107
University transportation research............................... 110
Transit planning and research.................................... 110
Trust fund share of expenses..................................... 111
Capital investment grants........................................ 111
Job access and reverse commute grants............................ 143
St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation
Operations and maintenance....................................... 144
Research and Special Programs Administration
Research and special programs.................................... 146
Pipeline safety.................................................. 148
Emergency preparedness grants.................................... 150
Office of Inspector General
Salaries and expenses............................................ 150
Surface Transportation Board
Salaries and expenses............................................ 151
TITLE II--RELATED AGENCIES
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board:
Salaries and expenses.......................................... 152
National Transportation Safety Board: Salaries and expenses...... 152
TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS
General provisions............................................... 154
Compliance with paragraph 7, rule XVI, of the Standing Rules of
the Senate..................................................... 158
Compliance with paragraph 7(c), rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules
of the
Senate......................................................... 158
Compliance with paragraph 12, rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of
the Senate..................................................... 159
Budgetary impact statement....................................... 160
TOTAL OBLIGATIONAL AUTHORITY PROVIDED--GENERAL FUNDS AND TRUST FUNDS
In addition to the appropriation of $22,251,162,000 in new
budget authority for fiscal year 2003, large amounts of
contract authority are provided by law, the obligation limits
for which are contained in the annual appropriations bill. The
principal items in this category are the trust funded programs
for Federal-aid highways, for mass transit, and for airport
development grants. For fiscal year 2003, estimated obligation
limitations and exempt obligations total $42,475,231,000.
PROGRAM, PROJECT, AND ACTIVITY
During fiscal year 2003, for the purposes of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law
99-177), as amended, with respect to appropriations contained
in the accompanying bill, the terms ``program, project, and
activity'' shall mean any item for which a dollar amount is
contained in appropriations acts (including joint resolutions
providing continuing appropriations) or accompanying reports of
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, or
accompanying conference reports and joint explanatory
statements of the committee of conference. This definition
shall apply to all programs for which new budget (obligational)
authority is provided, as well as to discretionary grants and
discretionary grant allocations made through either bill or
report language. In addition, the percentage reductions made
pursuant to a sequestration order to funds appropriated for
facilities and equipment, Federal Aviation Administration, and
for acquisition, construction, and improvements, Coast Guard,
shall be applied equally to each budget item that is listed
under said accounts in the budget justifications submitted to
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations as modified
by subsequent appropriations acts and accompanying committee
reports, conference reports, or joint explanatory statements of
the committee of conference.
ACCRUAL FUNDING OF RETIREMENT COSTS AND POST-RETIREMENT HEALTH BENEFITS
The President's Budget included a legislative proposal
under the jurisdiction of the Senate Committee on Governmental
Affairs to charge to individual agencies, starting in fiscal
year 2003, the fully accrued costs related to retirement
benefits of Civil Service Retirement System employees and
retiree health benefits for all civilian employees. The Budget
also requested an additional dollar amount in each affected
discretionary account to cover these accrued costs.
The authorizing committee has not acted on this
legislation, therefore the Senate Appropriations Committee has
reduced the dollar amounts of the President's request shown in
the ``Comparative Statement of New Budget Authority Request and
Amounts Recommended in the Bill'', as well as in other tables
in this report, to exclude the accrual funding proposal.
The Committee further notes that administration proposals
requiring legislative action by the authorizing committees of
Congress are customarily submitted in the budget as separate
schedules apart from the regular appropriations requests.
Should such a proposal be enacted, a budget amendment formally
modifying the President's appropriation request for
discretionary funding is subsequently transmitted to the
Congress.
The Senate Appropriations Committee joins with the House
Appropriations Committee in raising concern that this practice,
which has always worked effectively for both Congress and past
administrations, was not followed for the accrual funding
proposal. In this case, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) decided to include accrual amounts in the original
discretionary appropriations language request. These amounts
are based on legislation that has yet to be considered and
approved by the appropriate committees of Congress. This led to
numerous misunderstandings both inside and outside of Congress
of what was the ``true'' President's budget request. The
Committee believes that, in the future, OMB should follow long-
established procedures with respect to discretionary spending
proposals that require legislative action.
TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
Salaries and Expenses
Appropriations, 2002 \1\................................ $67,778,000
Budget estimate, 2003 \2\............................... 92,460,000
Committee recommendation................................ 73,069,000
\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $488,000 pursuant to section 349 of
Public Law 107-87 or reduction of $162,000 pursuant to section 1106 of
Public Law 107-117.
\2\ Excludes $3,640,000 for CSRS/FEHB accruals, of which $149,000 is OST
share of TASC accruals.
Section 3 of the Department of Transportation Act of
October 15, 1966 (Public Law 89-670) provides for establishment
of the Office of the Secretary of Transportation [OST]. The
Office of the Secretary is composed of the Secretary and the
Deputy Secretary immediate offices, the Office of the General
Counsel, and five assistant secretarial offices for
transportation policy, aviation and international affairs,
budget and programs, governmental affairs, and administration.
These secretarial offices have policy development and central
supervisory and coordinating functions related to the overall
planning and direction of the Department of Transportation,
including staff assistance and general management supervision
of the counterpart offices in the operating administrations of
the Department.
The Committee recommends a total of $73,069,000 for the
Office of the Secretary of Transportation including $60,000 for
reception and representation expenses.
The following table summarizes the Committee's
recommendation in comparison to the budget estimate:
(In thousands of dollars)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
--------------------------- Committee
2002 2003 recommendation
enacted \1\ estimate \2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immediate Office of the ........... 4,411 ..............
Secretary and Deputy
Secretary...................
Immediate Office of the 1,929 ............ 2,034
Secretary...................
Immediate Office of the 619 ............ 619
Deputy Secretary............
Office of the Executive 1,204 ............ 1,204
Secretariat.................
Board of Contract Appeals.... 507 611 507
Office of Small and 1,240 1,304 1,304
Disadvantaged Business
Utilization.................
Office of Intelligence and 1,321 ............ ..............
Security....................
Office of the Chief 5,991 15,987 10,991
Information Officer.........
Office of the Assistant 2,282 2,453 2,282
Secretary for Governmental
Affairs.....................
Office of the General Counsel 13,275 15,657 13,828
Office of the Under Secretary ........... 12,453 ..............
for Transportation Policy...
Office of the Assistant 7,421 ............ 7,471
Secretary for Aviation and
International Affairs.......
Office of the Assistant 3,058 ............ 3,058
Secretary for Transportation
Policy......................
Office of the Assistant 7,668 8,375 7,668
Secretary for Budget and
Programs....................
Office of the Assistant 18,890 29,285 20,380
Secretary for Administration
Assistant to the Secretary 1,723 1,926 1,723
and Director of Public
Affairs.....................
------------------------------------------
Total.................. 67,128 92,460 73,069
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reflects reduction of $650,000 pursuant to section 349 of Public Law
107-87 and section 1106 of Public Law 107-117..
\2\ Excludes $3,640,000 for CSRS/FEHB accruals.
IMMEDIATE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
The Committee recommends $2,034,000 for fiscal year 2003
for the Immediate Office of the Secretary. The Immediate Office
of the Secretary has the primary responsibility to provide
overall planning, direction, and control of the Department. The
additional funding made available for this office above the
comparable fiscal year 2002 appropriated level is intended to
address slightly more than half of the increased travel funds
sought by the Secretary.
IMMEDIATE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY SECRETARY
The Committee has recommended a total of $619,000 for the
Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary which has the primary
responsibility of assisting the Secretary in the overall
planning and direction of the Department. The amount provided
is the same as the comparable fiscal year 2002 appropriated
level.
OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL
The Committee recommends $13,828,000 for fiscal year 2003
for the Office of the General Counsel. The Office of the
General Counsel provides legal services to the Office of the
Secretary including the conduct of aviation regulatory
proceedings and aviation consumer activities and coordinates
and reviews the legal work in the chief counsels' offices of
the operating administrations. The General Counsel is the chief
legal officer of the Department of Transportation and the final
authority within the Department on all legal questions. The
Committee approves the agency's request for an increase of
$553,000 to be used for the Department's ``Accessibility for
All America'' initiative. These resources will assist the
Department in carrying out the requirements in the Air Carrier
Access Act of 1986 (ACAA) and Section 707 of the Wendell H.
Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century
(AIR-21). This is the only adjustment provided above the
comparable fiscal year 2002 appropriated level.
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR POLICY
For fiscal year 2003, the Committee provides $3,058,000 for
the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy which is the
primary policy office of the Department and is responsible to
the Secretary for analysis, development, articulation, and
review of policies and plans for domestic transportation. The
amount provided is the same as the comparable fiscal year 2002
appropriated level.
Tier Matching Based on Fiscal Capability.--At present,
Federal grant programs administered by the Federal Highway
Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, and Federal
Transit Administration require an identical match of all
communities without regard to their financial circumstances.
Some have asserted that this policy places a disproportionate
burden on lower-income jurisdictions and prevents these
jurisdictions from fully participating in the very programs
necessary to improve conditions. The Committee takes no
position on this assertion. However, for the purpose of
information gathering, the Committee separately requests the
FHWA, FAA, and FTA to each provide reports, covering the
programs within each administration, to the Committee by March
15, 2003 which address this contention. Should the agencies
believe that contention has merit, they may as part of these
reports, propose a tiered matching system for non-Federal
contributions based upon the fiscal capability of the grantee
and which does not increase, over the existing grant programs,
each program's cumulative financial burden on each
administration.
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR AVIATION AND INTERNATIONAL
AFFAIRS
The Committee recommends $7,471,000 for the Assistant
Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs which is
responsible for administering the economic regulatory functions
regarding the airline industry. In addition, the Assistant
Secretary provides departmental leadership and coordination on
international transportation policy issues relating to
maritime, trade, technical assistance, and cooperation
programs. As overseer of airline economic regulation, the
Assistant Secretary is responsible for international aviation
programs, the essential air service program, airline fitness
and licensing, acquisitions, international route awards, and
special investigations such as airline delays and computer
reservations systems (CRS). The amount provided is $50,000 more
than the comparable fiscal year 2002 appropriated level. This
increased amount is intended to cover some of the increased
travel costs associated with international aviation
negotiations.
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR BUDGET AND PROGRAMS
The Committee recommends a total of $7,668,000 for the
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs. The
amount provided is the same as the comparable fiscal year 2002
appropriated level. The Assistant Secretary for Budget and
Programs is the principal staff advisor to the Secretary on the
development, review, presentation, and execution of the
Department's budget resource requirements, and on the
evaluation and oversight of the Department's programs. The
primary responsibilities of this office are to ensure the
effective preparation and presentation of sound and adequate
budget estimates for the Department, to ensure the consistency
of the Department's budget execution with the action and advice
of the Congress and the Office of Management and Budget, to
evaluate the program proposals for consistency with the
Secretary's stated objectives, and to advise the Secretary of
program and legislative changes necessary to improve program
effectiveness.
The Committee directs the Office of the Secretary to report
monthly on the status of all outstanding reports and reporting
requirements, including how delinquent congressionally mandated
or requested reports are and an estimated date for delivery.
The Committee expects that the Department will constitute this
responsibility in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Budget and Programs.
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
The Committee recommends $2,282,000 for the Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs which advises the
Secretary on all congressional and intergovernmental activities
and on all departmental legislative initiatives and other
relationships with Members of Congress. The amount provided is
the same as the comparable fiscal year 2002 appropriated level.
The Assistant Secretary promotes effective communication with
other Federal agencies and regional Department officials, and
with State and local governments and national organizations for
development of departmental programs; and ensures that consumer
preferences, awareness, and needs are brought into the
decision-making process.
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION
The Committee recommends $20,380,000 for the Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Administration which includes the
Office of the Secretary portion of rent. The Assistant
Secretary for Administration is responsible for establishing
policies and procedures, setting guidelines, working with the
Operating Administrations to improve the effectiveness and
efficiency of the Department in human resource management,
security and administrative management, real and personal
property management, and acquisition and grants management. The
amount provided above the comparable fiscal year 2002
appropriated level is intended to compensate for some or all of
the following requested adjustments:
Increased security investigations....................... +$40,000
Protection services for the Secretary................... +150,000
HQ building security barriers........................... +300,000
OST's cost to TASC...................................... +1,000,000
The Committee has deferred consideration of the requests
for secure video conferencing equipment until the issues
surrounding the creation of a new Department of Homeland
Security are resolved. The Committee has not provided funding
for a security survey for the new headquarters building since
funding is not provided for the new headquarters building.
OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS
The Committee recommends $1,723,000 for the Office of
Public Affairs which is the principal advisor to the Secretary
and other senior departmental officials and news media on
public affairs questions. The Office issues news releases,
articles, fact sheets, briefing materials, publications, and
audiovisual materials. It also provides information to the
Secretary on opinions and reactions of the public and news
media on transportation programs and issues. The amount
provided is the same as the comparable fiscal year 2002
appropriated level.
EXECUTIVE SECRETARIAT
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,204,000 for
the expenses of the Executive Secretariat. The Executive
Secretariat assists the Secretary and Deputy Secretary in
carrying out their management functions and responsibilities by
controlling and coordinating internal and external written
materials. The amount provided is the same as the comparable
fiscal year 2002 appropriated level.
BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS
The primary responsibility of the Board of Contract Appeals
is to provide an independent forum for the trial and
adjudication of all claims by, or against, a contractor
relating to a contract of any element of the Department, as
mandated by the Contract Disputes Act of 1978, 41 U.S.C. 601.
The Committee has provided $507,000 for the Board of Contract
Appeals Board. The amount provided is the same as the
comparable fiscal year 2002 appropriated level.
OFFICE OF SMALL AND DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS UTILIZATION
The Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization
has primary responsibility for providing policy direction for
small and disadvantaged business participation in the
Department's procurement and grant programs, and effective
execution of the functions and duties under sections 8 and 15
of the Small Business Act, as amended. The Committee recommends
$1,304,000, the full amount requested.
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER
The Committee recommends $10,991,000 for the Office of the
Chief Information Officer which serves as the principal adviser
to the Secretary on matters involving information resources and
information systems management. The amount provided is
$5,000,000 more than the comparable fiscal year 2002
appropriated level.
The CIO provides leadership for a large information
technology program to ensure that the right investments are
made and that technology resources are secure and accessible.
OFFICE OF INTERMODALISM
The Committee recommends $1,261,000 for the Office of
Intermodalism to be funded within the Federal Highway
Administration's limitation on administrative expenses. The
Committee does not recommend funding for the Office of
Intermodalism in the Office of the Secretary accounts.
Office of Civil Rights
Appropriations, 2002 \1\................................ $8,500,000
Budget estimate, 2003 \2\............................... 8,700,000
Committee recommendation................................ 8,700,000
\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $60,000 pursuant to section 349 of
Public Law 107-87 or reduction of $70,000 pursuant to section 1106 of
Public Law 107-117..
\2\ Excludes $470,000 for CSRS/FEHB accruals.
The Office of Civil Rights is responsible for advising the
Secretary on civil rights and equal employment opportunity
matters, formulating civil rights policies and procedures for
the operating administrations, investigating claims that small
businesses were denied certification or improperly certified as
disadvantaged business enterprises, and overseeing the
Department's conduct of its civil rights responsibilities and
making final determinations on civil rights complaints. In
addition, the Civil Rights Office is responsible for enforcing
laws and regulations which prohibit discrimination in federally
operated and federally assisted transportation programs. The
Committee has provided a funding level of $8,700,000 for the
Office of Civil Rights, the full amount requested.
New Headquarters Building
Appropriations, 2002....................................................
Budget estimate, 2003................................... $25,000,000
Committee recommendation................................................
The administration requested $25,000,000 for the new
Department of Transportation headquarters project to
consolidate all of the department's headquarters operating
administration functions (except FAA and the United States
Coast Guard), from various locations into a state-of-the-art
efficient leased buildings within the central employment area
of the District of Columbia.
The Committee believes that providing funding for this
building is premature at this time, given the uncertainty
surrounding the possible transfer of certain DOT functions to a
new Department of Homeland Security and the extraordinary
investments that the Transportation Security Administration has
already made in the existing DOT building.
Transportation Planning, Research, and Development
Appropriations, 2002 \1\................................ $11,993,000
Budget estimate, 2003 \2\............................... 10,700,000
Committee recommendation................................ 21,000,000
\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $87,000 pursuant to section 349 of
Public Law 107-87 or reduction of $313,000 pursuant to section 1106 of
Public Law 107-117.
\2\ Excludes $135,000 for CSRS/FEHB accruals.
The Office of the Secretary performs those research
activities and studies which can more effectively or
appropriately be conducted at the departmental level. This
research effort supports the planning, research and development
activities, needed to assist the Secretary in the formulation
of national transportation policies. The program is carried out
primarily through contracts with other Federal agencies,
educational institutions, nonprofit research organizations, and
private firms. The Committee recommends $21,000,000 for
transportation planning, research, and development, $9,007,000
more than the fiscal year 2002 enacted level and $10,300,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
more than the President's budget request.
Project Name Amount
Bypass Mail System Computer Software & Hardware
Upgrades, AK........................................ $500,000
Circumpolar Infrastructure Task Force, Arctic Council &
Northern Forum, AK.................................. 500,000
Delaware Memorial Bridge Collision Avoidance Project, DE 1,000,000
DOT's Privacy Practies Third Party Evaluation........... 1,000,000
Northeast Advanced Vehicle Consortium Fuel Cell, CT..... 2,000,000
Office for Infrastructure Transp. & Logistics, AL....... 1,000,000
Strategic Freight Transportation Analysis, WA........... 1,500,000
UAL Fuel Cell/Hybrid Electric Research Program, AL...... 1,000,000
WestStart's Vehicular Flywheel Project, WA.............. 1,500,000
Transportation Administrative Service Center
Limitation, 2002 \1\ \2\................................ $125,323,000
Budget estimate, 2003 \3\............................... 131,779,000
Committee recommendation................................ 131,779,000
\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $5,000,000 pursuant to section 349 of
Public Law 107-87 or reduction of $4,300,000 pursuant to section 1106 of
Public Law 107-117.
\2\ Does not reflect $12,100,000 additional obligation limitation
pursuant to H.R. 4775.
\3\ Proposed without limitations. Includes DOT only.
The Transportation Administrative Service Center [TASC]
provides a business operation fund for DOT to provide a wide
range of administrative services to the Department and other
customers. Services are financed through customer
reimbursements. During the budget formulation phase TASC
provides customers with estimates based on historical usage,
adjusted for new or changed requirements. TASC is also
responsive to newly emerging customer requirements that may be
identified as the program is executed. Customer estimates are
updated mid-year during the execution phase to provide
customers with more current information. TASC services are
delivered to customers through an organizational structure of
individual business practices providing related services or
products. This arrangement allows TASC to achieve economies of
scale, resulting in savings for TASC customers. TASC customers
also benefit from expertise developed in service areas that are
used in the Federal sector, such as transit benefit
distribution and technology acquisition. TASC operates under a
full cost recovery concept, which incorporates distribution of
overhead and indirect cost. TASC services include:
--Functions formerly in DOT's working capital fund [WCF];
--Office of the Secretary [OST] personnel, procurement and
information technology support operations;
--Systems development staff;
--Operations of the consolidated departmental dockets
facilities; and
--Certain departmental services and administrative
operations, such as human resources management
programs, transit fare subsidy payments, and employee
wellness including substance awareness and testing.
Small Community Air Service Development Pilot Program
Appropriations, 2002.................................... $20,000,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................................
Committee recommendation................................ 20,000,000
The Committee bill includes $20,000,000, within funds
provided for FAA's airport improvement program, for the Small
Community Air Service Development Pilot Program authorized by
section 203 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and
Reform Act for the 21st Century. The program is designed to
improve air service to underutilized airports in small and
rural communities. The total number of communities or groups of
communities that can participate in the program is limited to
no more than 4 from any one State and no more than 40 overall.
The program gives priority to communities that have high air
fares, will contribute a local share of the cost, will
establish a public-private partnership to facilitate airline
service, and where assistance will provide benefits to a broad
segment of the traveling public.
Essential Air Service and Rural Airport Improvement Fund
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approriations Mandatory \3\ AIP transfer Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2002 \1\........................ \2\ $13,000,00 $50,000,000 .............. $63,000,000
0
Budget estimate, 2003........................... .............. 30,000,000 $83,000,000 113,000,000
Committee recommendation........................ 65,000,000 50,000,000 .............. 115,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not include $50,000,000 from payments to Air Carriers (A&ATF) provided in the Emergency Supplemental
Act, 2002, Public Law 107-117.
\2\ Payments to Air Carriers (Airport and Airway Trust Fund).
\3\ From overflight fees.
The Essential Air Service [EAS] and Rural Airport
Improvement Program provides funds directly to commuter/
regional airlines to provide air service to small communities
that otherwise would not receive air service and for rural
airport improvement as provided by the 1996 Federal Aviation
Reauthorization Act.
The Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act of 1996 authorizes
user fees for flights that fly over, but do not land in, the
United States. The first $50,000,000 of each year's fees were
to go directly to carry out the Essential Air Service Program
and, to the extent not used for essential air service, to
improve rural airport safety. If $50,000,000 in fees is not
available, than the funds must be made available from
appropriations otherwise made available to the FAA
Administrator.
For fiscal year 2003, the Administration has proposed to
transfer $83,000,000 from the grants-in-aid for airports
program (AIP) for the costs of the EAS program. The Committee
has rejected this request as it would strip almost the entire
amount of increased funds available in fiscal year 2003 for
investments in airport capacity and safety projects. The
Administration is also proposing bill language to allow the
Secretary to take whatever actions are necessary to keep the
2003 program within the proposed $113,000,000. The budget also
proposed capping the per passenger subsidy at $275 for points
greater than 210 miles, with the exception of service to
communities in Alaska. The Committee does not concur in either
of the Administration's proposals and has instead provided
adequate sums to provide service to all current and likely
eligible points. The Committee notes that there is anticipated
to be an estimated $13,000,000 in carryover funds brought
forward from fiscal year 2002 to fiscal year 2003. Together
with these resources, program funding under the Committee
recommendation should equal $128,000,000 in fiscal year 2003.
The following table reflects the points currently receiving
service and the annual rates as of February 1, 2002 in the
continental United States and Hawaii.
EAS SUBSIDY RATES AS OF FEBRUARY 1, 2002
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average daily
enplanements at Total
EAS point (year Annual subsidy Subsidy per passengers
States/communities ending rates (February passenger (year ending
September 30, 1, 2002) September 30,
2001) 2001)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALABAMA: Muscle Shoals...................... 22.5 $1,073,257 $76.05 14,113
ARIZONA:
Kingman................................. 5.1 541,502 170.87 3,169
Page.................................... ( \1\ ) 1,251,977 ............... ...............
Prescott................................ 14.0 541,502 61.80 8762
Show Low................................ ( \1\ ) 410,080 ............... ...............
ARKANSAS:
El Dorado/Camden........................ 4.1 825,569 317.89 2,597
Harrison................................ 8.6 1,125,591 208.06 5,410
Hot Springs............................. 8.4 1,125,591 214.77 5,241
Jonesboro............................... 7.7 825,569 170.85 4,832
CALIFORNIA:
Crescent City........................... 43.5 314,865 11.57 27,205
Merced.................................. 13.3 949,458 113.99 8,329
COLORADO:
Alamosa................................. 14.7 925,045 100.29 9,224
Cortez.................................. 28.8 403,311 22.35 18,044
Pueblo.................................. 8.8 527,185 95.83 5,501
HAWAII:
Hana.................................... 12.2 574,500 75.36 7,623
Kamuela................................. 6.0 424,559 112.62 3,770
Kalaupapa............................... 5.2 272,807 83.45 3,269
ILLINOIS: Marion/Herrin..................... 36.1 794,031 35.11 22,618
IOWA: Burlington............................ 39.2 929,082 37.85 24,547
KANSAS:
Dodge City.............................. 13.5 564,422 66.86 8,442
Garden City............................. 32.2 897,960 44.58 20,141
Great Bend.............................. 3.9 216,074 87.98 2,456
Hays.................................... 24.8 1,152,945 74.18 15,543
LIberal/Guymon.......................... 10.5 1,083,289 165.14 6,560
Topeka.................................. 6.2 621,872 161.07 3,861
KENTUCKY: Owensboro......................... 21.5 888,863 66.03 13,461
MAINE:
Augusta/Waterville...................... 13.7 634,145 73.76 8,597
Bar Harbor.............................. 40.8 634,145 24.82 25,545
Presque Isle............................ 59.6 1,082,408 29.03 37,284
Rockland................................ 23.4 634,145 43.38 14,620
MICHIGAN:
Iron/Ashland............................ 6.5 544,269 134.49 4,047
Iron Mountain/Kingsford................. 28.6 473,599 26.41 17,933
Manistee................................ 4.4 542,168 197.15 2,750
MISSOURI:
Cape Girardeau.......................... 22.3 430,925 30.87 13,958
Fort Leonard Wood....................... 27.1 573,725 33.79 16,979
Kirksville.............................. 6.3 732,363 186.59 3,925
MONTANA:
Glasgow................................. 7.0 707,462 160.60 4,405
Glendive................................ 3.1 707,462 367.13 1,927
Havre................................... 3.7 707,462 308.13 2,296
Lewistown............................... 2.8 707,462 398.35 1,776
Miles City.............................. 3.9 707,462 291.38 2,428
Sidney.................................. 8.6 707,462 131.89 5,364
Wolf Point.............................. 5.8 707,462 193.35 3,659
NEBRASKA:
Alliance................................ 2.8 785,175 449.96 1,745
Chadron................................. 5.1 785,175 244.83 3,207
Kearney................................. 25.0 839,487 53.71 15,629
McCook.................................. 7.6 1,325,289 279.48 4,742
Norfolk................................. 4.8 531,735 175.78 3,025
North Platte............................ 24.1 106,006 7.04 15,056
NEVADA: Ely................................. /1 976,533
NEW MEXICO:
Alamogordo/Holloman..................... 6.2 923,789 238.40 3,875
Clovis.................................. 8.8 1,118,197 202.28 5,528
Gallup.................................. 3.2 691,080 347.10 1,991
Silver City/Hurley/Deming............... 8.3 935,667 179.69 5,207
NEW YORK:
Massena................................. 9.0 371,835 65.87 5,645
Ogdensburg.............................. 7.6 371,835 77.72 4,784
Saranac Lake............................ 9.1 631,353 111.06 5,685
Utica................................... 3.7 1,133,415 495.59 2,287
Watertown............................... 10.7 371,835 55.33 6,720
NORTH DAKOTA:
Devils Lake............................. 8.5 793,867 149.17 5,322
Dickinson............................... 12.6 590,153 74.86 7,883
Jamestown............................... 9.4 793,867 134.30 5,911
OKLAHOMA:
Enid.................................... 12.1 972,122 128.15 7,586
Ponca City.............................. 11.7 972,122 132.23 7,352
PENNSYLVANIA: Oil City/Franklin............. 15.2 510,261 53.49 9,540
PUERTO RICO: Ponce.......................... 19.8 337,551 27.28 12,372
SOUTH DAKOTA:
Brookings............................... 3.4 849,386 397.09 2,139
Huron................................... 5.8 394,585 109.58 3,601
TENNESSEE: Jackson.......................... 25.3 1,151,993 72.68 15,850
TEXAS: Brownwood............................ 6.8 865,886 202.88 4,268
UTAH:
Cedar City.............................. 30.3 679,450 35.80 18,978
Moab.................................... /1 971,444
Vernal.................................. ( \1\ ) 1,102,967 ............... ...............
VERMONT: Rutland............................ 9.8 634,145 102.98 6,158
WASHINGTON: Ephrata/Moses Lake.............. 32.7 479,859 23.48 20,439
WEST VIRGINIA:
Beckley................................. 9.0 857,530 152.07 5,639
Princeton/Bluefield..................... 7.5 857,530 181.64 4,721
WISCONSIN: Oshkosh.......................... 8.7 460,392 84.86 5,425
WYOMING:
Laramie................................. 33.8 297,633 14.07 21,149
Rock Springs............................ 31.3 465,023 23.72 19,605
Worland................................. 9.5 353,345 59.73 5,916
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Less than full year data.
Minority Business Resource Center Program
Appropriations, 2002.................................... $900,000
Budget estimate, 2003................................... 900,000
Committee recommendation................................ 900,000
Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization
[OSDBU]/Minority Business Resource Center [MBRC].--The OSDBU/
MBRC provides assistance in obtaining short-term working
capital and bonding for disadvantaged, minority, and women-
owned businesses [DBE/MBE/WBE's]. In fiscal year 2001, the
short-term lending program was converted from a direct loan
program to a guaranteed loan program. In fiscal year 2003, the
program will continue to focus on providing working capital to
DBE/MBE/WBE's for transportation-related projects in order to
strengthen their competitive and productive capabilities.
Since fiscal year 1993, the short-term lending program has
been a separate line item appropriation, which segregated such
activities in response to changes made by the Federal Credit
Reform Act of 1990. The limitation on guaranteed loans under
the Minority Business Resource Center is at the
administration's requested level of $18,367,000.
Of the funds appropriated, $500,000 covers the subsidy
costs; and, $400,000 is for administrative expenses to carry
out the Guaranteed Loan Program.
Minority Business Outreach
Appropriations, 2002.................................... $3,000,000
Budget estimate, 2003................................... 3,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 3,000,000
This appropriation provides contractual support to assist
small, women-owned, Native American, and other disadvantaged
business firms in securing contracts and subcontracts arising
out of projects that involve Federal spending. It also provides
support to historically black and Hispanic colleges. Separate
funding is requested by the administration since this program
provides grants and contract assistance that serves DOT-wide
goals and not just OST purposes.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Rebates, refunds, and incentive payments.--The Department
receives funds from various Government programs at different
time intervals (that is, weekly, monthly, quarterly). For
example, under the General Services Administration's Travel
Management Center [TMC] Program, rebate checks received from
the travel contractor are distributed monthly to each element
of the Department in proportion to net domestic airline sales
arranged by the contractor. Past expenditures have to be
analyzed to determine the proper sources to refund which can be
a time-consuming process. The staff time and cost associated
with the precise accounting for each such refund is
prohibitive. To alleviate the need to specifically identify the
source for each repayment the Committee has included language
(sec. 326), as requested, that allows a fair and sensible
allocation of the rebates and miscellaneous other funds.
CHANGES IN FISCAL YEAR 2002 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION APPROPRIATIONS
(In thousands of dollars)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Law 107-87 DOT Appropriations Act Public Law 107-117 Emergency
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Supp. Net
Approprations Sec. 329 -------------------------------- appropriation
Account and Sec. 349 TASC Sec. 318 Amtrak Sec. 330 Sec. 350 and obligation
obligations reduction recession Reform Misc. hwy GF Border Sec. 1106 TASC Chapter 11 limitation
limitation Council projects Crossing reduction
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Secretary:
Salaries and expenses............................... 67,778 -488 ............ ............ ............ -162 .............. .............. 67,128
Transportation planning, research, and developme.... 11,993 -87 ............ ............ ............ ............ -313 .............. 11,593
Minority business resources center.................. 900 .............. ............ ............ ............ ............ .............. .............. 900
Minority business outreach.......................... 3,000 .............. ............ ............ ............ ............ .............. .............. 3,000
Office of civil rights.............................. 8,500 -60 ............ ............ ............ ............ -70 .............. 8,370
Essential air service/payments to air carriers...... 13,000 .............. ............ ............ ............ ............ .............. [50,000] 63,000
Essential air service (transfer of fees from FAA.... [50,000] .............. ............ ............ ............ ............ .............. .............. [50,000]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.......................................... 105,171 -635 ............ ............ ............ ............ -545 50,000 153,991
=======================================================================================================================================
Transportation Security Administration:
Transportation Security Administration \1\.......... .............. .............. ............ ............ ............ ............ .............. 94,800 94,800
Transportation Security Administration (fees)....... [1,250,000] .............. ............ ............ ............ ............ .............. .............. [1,250,000]
=======================================================================================================================================
U.S. Coast Guard:
Operating Expenses.................................. 3,382,000 -791 ............ ............ ............ ............ -680 209,150 3,589,679
Acquisition, construction, and improvements......... 636,354 -158 ............ ............ ............ ............ -136 .............. 636,060
Environmental compliance and restoration............ 16,927 -5 ............ ............ ............ ............ -4 .............. 16,918
Alteration of bridges............................... 15,466 .............. ............ ............ ............ ............ .............. .............. 15,466
Retired pay......................................... 876,346 .............. ............ ............ ............ ............ .............. .............. 876,346
Reserve training.................................... 83,194 -22 ............ ............ ............ ............ -19 .............. 83,153
Research, development, test, and evaluation......... 20,222 -3 ............ ............ ............ ............ -3 .............. 20,216
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.......................................... 5,030,509 -979 ............ ............ ............ ............ -842 209,150 5,237,838
=======================================================================================================================================
Federal Aviation Administration:
Operations.......................................... 6,886,000 -1,516 ............ ............ ............ ............ -1,304 200,000 7,083,180
Facilities and equipment............................ 2,914,000 .............. ............ ............ ............ ............ .............. 108,500 3,022,500
Facilities and equipment, rescission of py BA....... -15,000 .............. ............ ............ ............ ............ .............. .............. -15,000
Research, engineering, and development.............. 195,000 .............. ............ ............ ............ ............ .............. 50,000 245,000
Grants-in-aid for airports (obligation limitatio.... 3,300,000 .............. ............ ............ ............ ............ .............. .............. 3,300,000
Grants-in-aid for airports (rescission of contra.... -301,720 .............. ............ ............ ............ ............ .............. .............. -301,720
Grants-in-aid for airports (TF appropriations)...... .............. .............. ............ ............ ............ ............ .............. 175,000 175,000
=======================================================================================================================================
Subtotal.......................................... 12,978,280 -1,516 ............ ............ ............ ............ -1,304 533,500 13,508,960
=======================================================================================================================================
Federal Highway Administration:
Limitation on administrative expenses............... [311,000] [-452] ............ ............ ............ ............ [-389] .............. [310,159]
Federal-aid highways (obligation limitation) \2\.... 31,799,104 .............. ............ ............ ............ ............ .............. .............. 31,799,104
Emergency relief (CA)............................... [100,000] .............. ............ ............ ............ ............ .............. .............. [100,000]
Emergency relief (TF approp)........................ .............. .............. ............ ............ ............ ............ .............. 75,000 75,000
Exempt obligations.................................. 965,308 .............. ............ ............ ............ ............ .............. .............. 965,308
Appalachian Development Highway System.............. 200,000 .............. ............ ............ ............ ............ .............. .............. 200,000
State infrastructure banks, rescission of py BA..... -5,750 .............. ............ ............ ............ ............ .............. .............. -5,750
Miscellaneous appropriations (GF)................... .............. .............. ............ ............ 144,000 ............ .............. 4,300 148,300
Miscellaneous highway projects (TF)................. .............. .............. ............ ............ ............ ............ .............. 100,000 100,000
Value Pricing and TIFIA, rescission of CA........... -52,973 .............. ............ ............ ............ ............ .............. .............. -52,973
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.......................................... 32,905,689 [-452] ............ ............ 144,000 ............ [-389] 179,300 33,228,989
=======================================================================================================================================
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration:
National motor carrier safety program (obligation).. 205,896 .............. ............ ............ ............ ............ .............. .............. 205,896
Motor carrier safety (limitation on administrati.... 110,000 -85 ............ ............ ............ ............ -73 .............. 109,842
Border Enforcement (TF)............................. .............. .............. ............ ............ ............ 25,866 .............. .............. 25,866
Limitation on admin. expenses, rescission of CA..... -6,665 .............. ............ ............ ............ ............ .............. .............. -6,665
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.......................................... 309,231 -85 ............ ............ ............ 25,866 -73 .............. 334,939
=======================================================================================================================================
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration:
Operations and Research, General Fund............... 127,780 -536 ............ ............ ............ ............ -461 .............. 126,783
Operations and Research, Trust Fund (obligation..... 72,000 .............. ............ ............ ............ ............ .............. .............. 72,000
National driver registration........................ 2,000 .............. ............ ............ ............ ............ .............. .............. 2,000
Highway safety grants............................... 223,000 .............. ............ ............ ............ ............ .............. .............. 223,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.......................................... 424,780 -536 ............ ............ ............ ............ -461 .............. 423,783
=======================================================================================================================================
Federal Railroad Administration:
Safety and operations............................... 110,857 -175 ............ ............ ............ ............ -150 6,000 116,532
Research and development............................ 29,000 .............. ............ ............ ............ ............ .............. .............. 29,000
Next generation high speed rail..................... 32,300 .............. ............ ............ ............ ............ .............. .............. 32,300
Alaska railroad rehabilitation...................... 20,000 .............. ............ ............ ............ ............ .............. .............. 20,000
Grants to Nat'l RR Passenger Corp................... 521,476 .............. ............ ............ ............ ............ .............. 100,000 621,476
Pennsylania Station redevelopment................... 20,000 .............. ............ ............ ............ ............ .............. .............. 20,000
Amtrak reform council............................... .............. .............. ............ 225 ............ ............ .............. .............. 225
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.......................................... 733,633 -175 ............ 225 ............ ............ -150 106,000 839,533
=======================================================================================================================================
Federal Transit Administration:
Administrative expenses (approps and oblig limit.... 67,000 [-208] ............ ............ ............ ............ [-179] .............. 67,000
Formula grants (approps and oblig limitation) \3\... 3,542,000 .............. ............ ............ ............ ............ .............. 23,500 3,565,500
Univ. transporation research (approps and oblig..... 6,000 .............. ............ ............ ............ ............ .............. .............. 6,000
Transit planning and research (approps and oblig.... 116,000 .............. ............ ............ ............ ............ .............. .............. 116,000
Capital investment grants (approps and oblig lim.... 2,891,000 .............. ............ ............ ............ ............ .............. 100,000 2,991,000
Capital investment grants (Trust Fund approps)...... .............. .............. ............ ............ ............ ............ .............. .............. ..............
Job access (approps and oblig limitation)........... 125,000 .............. ............ ............ ............ ............ .............. .............. 125,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.......................................... 6,747,000 [-208] ............ ............ ............ ............ [-179] 123,500 6,870,500
=======================================================================================================================================
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corp:
Operations and maintenance.......................... 13,345 -11 ............ ............ ............ ............ -10 .............. 13,324
=======================================================================================================================================
Research and Special Programs Administration:
Research and special programs....................... 37,279 -113 ............ ............ ............ ............ -97 2,500 39,569
Pipeline safety..................................... 58,250 -74 ............ ............ ............ ............ -64 .............. 58,112
Emergency preparedness grants....................... 14,300 .............. ............ ............ ............ ............ .............. .............. 14,300
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.......................................... 109,829 -187 ............ ............ ............ ............ -161 2,500 111,981
=======================================================================================================================================
Bureau of Transportation Statistics \4\................. [31,000] [-103] ............ ............ ............ ............ [-89] .............. [30,808]
=======================================================================================================================================
Office of the Inspector General: Salaries and expenses 50,614 -108 ............ ............ ............ ............ -93 1,300 51,713
\5\....................................................
=======================================================================================================================================
Surface Transportation Board:
Salaries and expenses............................... 18,457 -5 ............ ............ ............ ............ -4 .............. 18,448
Salaries and expenses (fees)........................ [950] .............. ............ ............ ............ ............ .............. .............. [950]
=======================================================================================================================================
Total, Department of Transportation (excluding 59,426,538 -4,237 ............ 225 144,000 25,866 -3,643 1,300,050 60,888,799
Maritime Administration).........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not include reallocation of Public Law 107-38 funds of $760 million from FEMA to TSA.
\2\ Net of transfer of RABA to FMCSA.
\3\ Reflects $50 million BA transfer from formula grants to capital discretionary.
\4\ BTS funding included within Federal-aid highways.
\5\ Does not include $5.5 million reimbursable from FHWA and FTA.
TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2003 PROGRAM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Offsetting
Appropriation Collections
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2002 \1\ \2\........ $1,250,000,000 $1,250,000,000
Budget estimate, 2003............... 4,800,000,000 2,347,000,000
Committee recommendation............ 4,950,000,000 2,347,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not include: (1) an additional $780,000,000 in supplemental
funding provided to FAA for, among other things, security within the
aircraft, explosives detection systems, and designated pilot and
demonstration projects; (2) $298,000,000 in appropriated funding
provided to FAA for functions now performed by TSA, including the
transfer of the Civil Aviation Security organization, research and
development, and explosives detection systems; and, (3) $93,000,000
provided for port security grants.
\2\ Does not $2.85,000,000,000 in fiscal year 2002 to support TSA
operations.
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) was
established on November 19, 2001, with the enactment of the
Aviation and Transportation Security Act (Act) into law. The
Act created TSA within the Department of Transportation and
identified a series of objectives and authorities under which
TSA would improve security across all modes of transportation
for the American public. As called for in the Act, TSA is
charged with ensuring security across the U.S. transportation
system. TSA's mission is to protect the Nation's transportation
systems by safeguarding the freedom of movement of people and
commerce. TSA will be responsible for providing security to the
Nation's transportation systems including aviation, railways,
highways, pipelines, and waterways. The Act for the first time
made overall aviation security a direct Federal responsibility.
The Committee recommends $4,950,000,000 for the activities
of the Transportation Security Administration for fiscal year
2003. The amount provided is $150,000,000 more than the budget
request.
Challenges for the Transportation Security Administration
(TSA).--In the Committee's view, the initial performance of the
Transportation Security Administration has been disappointing.
There is no question that the deadlines imposed by the Aviation
and Transportation Security Act would be extraordinarily
challenging for any agency to meet, even one that has been up
and running for several decades. That said, the Committee has
not been satisfied with the agency's performance to date,
especially in the manner in which the agency has communicated
with the Committee and the general public. Budget materials
provided by the agency to the Committee have lacked the level
of specificity and clarity that is necessary for the Committee
to conduct proper oversight and allocate taxpayer funds. Even
more importantly, the agency's posture with its public
stakeholders has been characterized by arrogance and disregard
of the public's views. This is particularly troubling given the
fact that the agency's core mission is to reassure the public
as to the safety of the Nation's transportation system. The
Committee hopes and expects that the recent change in
leadership at the agency will signal a new day in the way the
agency interacts with the Committee and the general public.
Programs, Projects and Activities (PPAs).--As discussed
above, the Committee has struggled to ascertain the TSA's
spending plans based on the budget documentation submitted by
the agency. The statement of managers accompanying the
Supplemental Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2002 noted
that, at present, there are no clearly defined Programs,
Projects, and Activities (PPA's) established for the TSA's
budget. The Committee anxiously awaits the TSA's submission of
proposed PPA's so that the Committee can better understand and
review the agency's spending priorities. Until the agency and
the Committee comes to closure on defined PPA's for the TSA
budget, the Committee cannot articulate its funding
recommendation in the context of adjustments to the President's
Budget. As such, the following table displays the minimum
amounts provided by the Committee for the following activities.
Modification of Airports to Install Checked Baggage
Explosive Detection Systems Including Trace
Detection Systems................................... $200,000,000
Procurement of Explosive Detection Systems and Trace
Detection Systems................................... \1\ 124,000,000
Intercity Bus Security Initiative....................... 15,000,000
Operation Safe Commerce................................. 35,000,000
Security Research....................................... 25,000,000
Grants to Port Authorities for Security Enhancements.... 100,000,000
Transportation Information Operations Center (TIOC)..... 3,500,000
\1\ Includes transfer of $55,000,000 from FAA facilities and equipment.
Modification of Airports to Install EDS and ETD Systems.--
In reviewing the TSA's belated budget submission, the Committee
was dismayed to learn that no additional funds have been
budgeted for fiscal year 2003 for airport modifications
necessary to install Explosive Detection Systems (EDS) and
Explosive Trace Detection (ETD) systems. Over the course of the
next several weeks, the TSA will attempt to install massive
amounts of explosive detection equipment in the Nation's
airports in order to comply with the ATSA's December 31st
deadline for screening all checked baggage for explosives. By
the agency's own admission, many of the measures that will be
necessary to install and operate this equipment on such a short
timeline will present considerable inconvenience to airline
passengers, air carriers, airport manager's and airport-based
venders. In many instances, for the lack of time and money to
install explosive detection systems as part of the airport's
central baggage processing system, explosive detection
equipment will be required to be installed in terminal space
currently used by airline passengers.
The Committee, unlike the TSA, is not prepared to allow
this less-than-satisfactory situation to persist for a number
of years while the agency pursues the development of next-
generation explosive detection technologies. As such the
Committee has provided $200,000,000 for fiscal year 2003 for
the purpose of improving upon the interim deployment plans that
will be necessary to comply with the December 31 deadline. The
Committee expects these funds to be used to retrofit those
airports that will face the greatest difficulty in minimizing
the inconvenience of air passengers in complying with the
December 31 deadline.
Credentialing and screening of aviation workers.--The
statement of managers accompanying the second Supplemental
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2002 expressed a number of
concerns regarding TSA's planned deployment of its
transportation worker identity card (TWIC) initiative. The
Committee of Conference to that bill went on to prohibit the
TSA from obligating any funds for this initiative until the
agency reports to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations on the concerns cited in the statement of
managers and the agency receives written reprogramming approval
from both Committees. In developing his reprogramming request,
the Committee expects the Under Secretary to be particularly
attentive to the immediate need for improved credentialing to
allow for the expeditious and seamless movement of airline and
airport employees. The fact that airline and airport workers
have already undergone background investigations should
facilitate this effort. The Committee expects the Under
Secretary to promptly develop a credentialing system that is
accepted throughout the airport network and is supported by a
centralized database so that access limitations can be
communicated promptly throughout the system. With regard to
security screening, it is imperative that TSA develop a new
screening process for airline and airport employees. This
process should be conducted at separate portals from the
screening of passengers and should be tailored to the minimal
security risk posed by aviation employees. The TSA's current
screening methods for aviation employees diverts limited
security resources away from the real risks to the air
transportation system and needlessly creates delays for workers
providing time-critical aviation services on behalf of the
traveling public. The Committee believes that TSA would benefit
from the appointment of a taskforce to assist in the
development of this new credentialing and screening system.
Such a taskforce should include representatives from airlines,
airports, and aviation labor. The Committee will carefully
review the Under Secretary's reprogramming requests to
determine the extent of his responsiveness to the Committee's
stated concerns and directives in this area.
Intercity Bus Security.--The Committee has provided an
additional $15,000,000 for the TSA's continued efforts in the
area of improving security in the intercity bus industry. These
funds will better insure the security of millions of passengers
that use the nation's intercity bus network.
Operation Safe Commerce.--The Committee has provided
$30,000,000 for the continued deployment of Operation Safe
Commerce. These funds shall be subject to the same terms and
conditions as articulated in the Committee report accompanying
the fiscal year 2002 Supplemental Appropriations Bill. The
amount provided is $2,000,000 more than the amount provided for
fiscal year 2002.
Security Research.--TSA will conduct research and
development activities in an effort to improve current security
technology. This research will be targeted toward methodologies
of detecting potential chemical, biological or similar threats
and devices that could be released on an aircraft or within an
airport.
Pilot projects.--The Committee has provided funding in
previous appropriations acts for the TSA to conduct pilot
projects to demonstrate and evaluate promising security
technologies and concepts. Pilot projects provide useful data
and practical experience regarding the effect of innovative
approaches and technology in improving aviation security. As
the newest large hub airport, Denver International Airport
(DIA) is well-suited as a location for testing new security
systems, and the Committee encourages the Under Secretary to
consider DIA as a candidate for conducting pilot projects,
including tests of new explosive detection equipment.
Security Research Centers.--The FAA has established strong
collaborative research efforts with universities and private
industry, and this beneficial arrangement has helped advanced a
variety of aviation interests. The Committee believes that the
Under Secretary could achieve similar benefits in the area of
transportation security by establishing similar alliances.
Therefore, the Committee encourages the Under Secretary, as the
TSA continues to refine its research and development program,
to utilize expertise at the following institutions: Center for
Industrial Competitiveness at the University of Massachusetts-
Lowell; National Institute for Advanced Transportation
Technology at the University of Idaho; State University System
of Florida's Consortium for Intermodal Transportation Safety
and Security; Aviation Institute at the University of Nebraska
at Omaha; and, the Center of Excellence for Aviation Security.
Oversize Inspection System.--The Committee encourages the
Under Secretary to develop of a prototype oversize inspection
system which uses multiple analysis techniques, including a
high penetration beam and high performance sensors, to screen
cargo containers, vehicles, and other large objects.
Automated Surveillance System.--The Committee encourages
the Under Secretary to develop airport checkpoint security and
process management initiative at the Wichita Mid-Continent
Airport that links video technology with advanced software for
real-time identification of security risks and can alert
appropriate security personnel.
Remote baggage screening.--The Committee encourages the
Under Secretary to develop a pilot project at Anchorage
International Airport that will evaluate the potential of a
rapid baggage movement system to screen checked luggage for
explosives at an off-site facility.
Grants to Port Authorities for Security Enhancements.--The
Committee has provided $100,000,000 for port security grants in
fiscal year 2003. These grants will be competitively awarded by
the Under Secretary for the purpose of assessing and improving
security at the Nation's seaports. While a total of
$218,000,000 was made available for this activity between the
first and second Supplemental Appropriations Acts for 2002, the
Department of Transportation's solicitation for applications
demonstrated an initial demand for these grants of almost
$700,000,000. Funds provided in fiscal year 2003 will help meet
this demand.
Integrated Port Security Pilot Projects.--The Committee is
supportive of a series of integrated port security pilot
projects that involve information sharing between the busiest
container and cruise ship ports in the southeastern United
States. In distributing funds under the port security grant
program for fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2003, the
Committee encourages the Under Secretary to positively consider
applications for such an integrated set of pilot projects.
Elements of these pilot projects might include the improvement
of surveillance systems, the use of smart cards and biometric
technology, vehicular traffic control, cargo inspection,
improved communications infrastructure and information systems
infrastructure, as well as passenger and baggage screening for
cruise ship passengers.
Transportation Information Operations Center (TIOC).--As
part of the budget request for the Fiscal Year 2002
Supplemental Appropriations Act the Secretary of Transportation
requested $3,500,000 for the establishment of a Transportation
Information Operations Center at DOT headquarters. The
Committee of Conference on the fiscal year 2002 Supplemental
Appropriations Bill deferred consideration of this request,
given the uncertainty surrounding what security
responsibilities would reside within DOT should a new Office of
Homeland Security be established. The Committee has provided
the necessary funding for the establishment of the TIOC at this
time and will continue to monitor whether such a facility will
be necessary when, and if, there is a newly established
distribution of security responsibilities within the Federal
Government.
Fitness for Duty Requirements.--The Committee is concerned
that the Under Secretary has not as yet implemented the new
requirement imposed by the Aviation and Transportation Security
Act that airport security screeners demonstrate daily their
fitness-for-duty without impairment due to fatigue,
medications, drug use or alcohol. The Committee strongly
recommends that the Under Secretary make expedited use of
currently available fitness-for-duty technology to assess daily
the alertness of airport security.
Air Marshall air-ground communications.--Funding was
provided in fiscal year 2002 for procurement of air-ground
communications systems for Federal air marshals. The Committee
expects the Under Secretary to proceed expeditiously with this
procurement and begin installation of such systems on major
commercial passenger aircraft as soon as possible.
U.S. COAST GUARD
Summary of Fiscal Year 2002 Program
The U.S. Coast Guard, as it is known today, was established
on January 28, 1915, through the merger of the Revenue Cutter
Service and the Lifesaving Service. In 1939, the U.S.
Lighthouse Service was transferred to the Coast Guard, followed
by the Bureau of Marine Inspection and Navigation in 1942. The
Coast Guard has as its primary responsibilities the enforcement
of all applicable Federal laws on the high seas and waters
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; promotion of
safety of life and property at sea; assistance to navigation;
protection of the marine environment; and maintenance of a
state of readiness to function as a specialized service in the
Navy in time of war (14 U.S.C. 1, 2).
The Committee recommends a total program level of
$6,071,978,000 for the activities of the Coast Guard in fiscal
year 2003. This represents an increase of $832,319,000 (16
percent) above the fiscal year 2002 enacted level. The
following table summarizes the Committee's recommendations:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
Program 2002 enacted 2003 estimate recommendations \5\
\1\ \3\ \4\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating expenses \2\................................... 3,382,000,000 4,153,456,000 4,318,456,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes reduction of $1,471,000 pursuant to Public Law 107-87 and 107-117.
\2\ Includes funding for national security activities of the Coast Guard scored against budget function 050
(defense discretionary) as follows: fiscal year 2002 enacted amount includes $440,000,000 in defense
discretionary funding; fiscal year 2003 estimate includes $340,000,000 and fiscal year 2003 Committee
recommendation includes $340,000,000.
\3\ Excludes $209,150,000 in Emergency Supplemental Appropriations, pursuant to Public Law 107-117.
\4\ Excludes $22,284,000 in civilian and $293,858,000 in military accruals. Excludes $165,000,000 in new user
fee revenue.
\5\ Includes $300,000,000 provided in the Department of Defense appropriations bill.
Operating Expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New user fee
General Trust revenue Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2002 \1\ \2\ \5\........ $3,357,055,000 $24,945,000 ................ $3,382,000,000
Budget estimate, 2003 \3\............... 4,129,126,000 25,000,000 $165,000,000 4,318,456,000
Committee recommendation \4\ \6\........ 4,293,456,000 25,000,000 ................ 4,318,456,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $440,000,000 for national security activities scored against budget function 050 (defense).
\2\ Excludes reduction of $1,471,000 rescission pursuant to Public Laws 107-87 and 107-117.
\3\ Includes $340,000,000 for national security activities scored against budget function 050 (defense).
\4\ Includes $340,000,000 for national security activities including drug interdiction scored against budget
function 050 (defense).
\5\ Excludes $209,150,000 in Emergency Supplemental Appropriations pursuant to Public Law 107-117.
\6\ Includes $300,000,000 provided in the Department of Defense appropriations bill.
The ``Operating expenses'' appropriation provides funds for
the operation and maintenance of multipurpose vessels,
aircraft, and shore units strategically located along the
coasts and inland waterways of the United States and in
selected areas overseas.
The program activities of this appropriation fall into the
following categories:
Search and rescue.--One of its earliest and most
traditional missions, the Coast Guard maintains a nationwide
system of boats, aircraft, cutters, and rescue coordination
centers on 24-hour alert.
Aids to navigation.--To help mariners determine their
location and avoid accidents, the Coast Guard maintains a
network of manned and unmanned aids to navigation along our
coasts and on our inland waterways, and operates radio stations
in the United States and abroad to serve the needs of the armed
services and marine and air commerce.
Marine safety.--The Coast Guard insures compliance with
Federal statutes and regulations designed to improve safety in
the merchant marine industry and operates a recreational
boating safety program.
Marine environmental protection.--The primary objectives of
this program are to minimize the dangers of marine pollution
and to assure the safety of U.S. ports and waterways.
Enforcement of laws and treaties.--The Coast Guard is the
principal maritime enforcement agency with regard to Federal
laws on the navigable waters of the United States and the high
seas, including fisheries, drug smuggling, illegal immigration,
and hijacking of vessels.
Ice operations.--In the Arctic and Antarctic, Coast Guard
icebreakers escort supply ships, support research activities
and Department of Defense operations, survey uncharted waters,
and collect scientific data. The Coast Guard also assists
commercial vessels through ice-covered waters.
Defense readiness.--During peacetime the Coast Guard
maintains an effective state of military preparedness to
operate as a service in the Navy in time of war or national
emergency at the direction of the President. As such the Coast
Guard has primary responsibility for the security of ports,
waterways, and navigable waters up to 200 miles offshore.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommendation for Coast Guard operating
expenses is $4,318,456,000, including $25,000,000 from the oil
spill liability trust fund and $340,000,000 from function 050
for the Coast Guard's defense-related activities including drug
interdiction. Within the amount recommended, $300,000,000 is
provided in the Department of Defense appropriations bill. This
is $165,000,000 more than the budget request and $936,456,000
(27 percent) more than the fiscal year 2002 enacted level.
Mission Emphasis.--The Coast Guard responded to the
terrorist attacks of last September in an unprecedented and
dramatic manner. In doing so, they refocused nearly all of
their personnel and redirected most of their cutters, boats and
aircraft on domestic maritime security. While the Coast Guard
has on a number of occasions been required to rapidly shift its
mission emphasis, the extent of the shift to domestic security
that followed the events of September 11th was certainly
unprecedented in the history of the Coast Guard. The Committee
believes that the Coast Guard acted with extraordinary
professionalism and heroism during this period of rapid
transformation. At the same time, the Committee has concerns
regarding the Coast Guard's ability to once again achieve
mission balance and adequately address its other critical
missions--missions including Search and Rescue, Drug and
Migrant Interdiction, the maintenance of Aids to Navigation and
ensuring the safety and integrity of our domestic fishing
grounds.
As part of the Committee's annual hearing regarding the
Coast Guard's budget request, the DOT Inspector General
reported that the service deployed 59 percent of its resources
on port safety and security missions immediately following
September 11th. Those resources included the Coast Guard's core
Search and Rescue vessels, some of which were repositioned far
away from their optimal location for conducting their Search
and Rescue mission. Indeed, the IG noted that the Coast Guard's
small boat stations experienced a 50 percent increase in
operating hours as they sought to perform all of their new port
security responsibilities at the same time they were seeking to
maintain an effective Search and Rescue program.
The information provided below illustrates exactly how the
Coast Guard directed its mission emphasis over the last year.
It depicts an overall increase in operating hours in the first
quarter of fiscal year 2002 reflecting the rapid response to
the terrorist attacks. That surge began to level off in the
third quarter of fiscal year 2002 as the Coast Guard sought to
return to a more balanced level of effort across its missions.
A review of the data for the third quarter of fiscal year
2002--the most recent quarter for which data is available--
reveals that many of the missions that suffered the greatest
diminution of effort following September 11th have not yet
returned to their baseline level. Indeed, the Committee is
greatly concerned that the agencies new emphasis on security,
as articulated in its fiscal year 2003 budget request, means
that the Coast Guard has no intention of restoring missions
like drug interdiction and fisheries enforcement to their pre-
September 11th levels.
The Committee does not question the need for a more robust
homeland security focus on the part of the Coast Guard. Even
so, the Committee is disappointed that, at a time when the
Administration is requesting an historic and well deserved
funding increase for the Coast Guard, almost the entire
increase is devoted to expanded homeland defense efforts.
Indeed, the documentation accompanying this budget request
confirms the agency's intention to continue to de-emphasize its
non-homeland defense missions while its budget grows. The
Committee does not agree that, at a time when the Coast Guard's
operating budget is growing by double-digit percentages, the
taxpayer should be content with a diminished effort in the
areas of marine safety, marine environmental protection, drug
interdiction and fisheries enforcement.
In order to address this concern, the Committee is granting
the Commandant the flexibility to redress this imbalance. The
Committee fully funds the $21,724,000 sought for Maritime
Search and Rescue improvements--budget category IV F--and
disallows funding for budget category IV G since this item is
not consistent with the Coast Guard's Ports and Waterways
Safety Systems (PAWSS) strategy. With the more than
$450,000,000 in additional funding provided in this
appropriation to operate new facilities and commence or enhance
new initiatives, the Committee expects the Commandant to launch
his highest priority initiatives for homeland defense while
leaving himself sufficient resources to return his non-homeland
security missions to their pre-September 11th levels.
The Committee directs the Commandant to submit a detailed
report as to how he will achieve this objective as part of his
budget submission for fiscal year 2004. This report should
include a detailed revised distribution of fiscal year 2003
resources in comparison to the line items initially requested
in the fiscal year 2003 budget request. In order to monitor the
Commandant's progress toward this goal, the Committee directs
the Commandant to submit quarterly reports to the Committee
detailing the resource hours achieved by mission. This report
should also include district-by-district data for aircraft,
cutter, and boat hours by mission area. The report should also
compare this data to the comparable data for the eight quarters
that preceded September 11, 2001. These reports will be
submitted using the same deadlines and restrictions pertaining
to the agency's Quarterly Acquisition Reports.
The Committee recognizes that the integrity of the Coast
Guard's mission hour data has been compromised in the past due
to inconsistencies in unit's reporting practices in the field.
The Committee commends the Commandant's efforts to date to
improve the accuracy of this data and requests that the DOT
Inspector General periodically monitor the reporting of this
data as well as the accuracy of the quarterly mission hour
reports to be submitted to the Committee.
Flag Officer Billets.--The Committee has provided
sufficient funds for the retention of 34 flag billets in fiscal
year 2003, the full amount requested in the Coast Guard's
budget request. The Committee notes that the number of flag
officer billets has grown steadily in the last few years even
though the Coast Guard has consistently had the lowest ratio of
officers to flag officers and enlisted personnel to flag
officers of any of the military services. The Committee
recognizes that an even higher level of flag officer billets
may be authorized. However, the Committee is concerned that the
budget justifications submitted to the Committee have not
accurately reflected the number of flag officers requested for
the budget year. Specifically, the budget justification for
fiscal year 2000 identified an expectation for one additional
flag billet in the budget year. With the arrival of the 2001
budget request, the Committee discovered that the service added
two additional flag billets in fiscal year 2000. Similarly, the
2002 budget request did not identify any growth in the number
of flag officers for that year. With the arrival of the budget
request for 2003, the Committee discovered that the service had
indeed added another flag officer in 2002. For fiscal year
2003, the budget request seeks a total of 34 flag officers and
the Committee has provided sufficient sums for that number.
Navigational Assistance Services Fees.--For the second
consecutive year, the Administration had proposed the
initiation of new Navigational Assistance Service fees. The
effect of this proposal is to lower the actual appropriation
requirement for Coast Guard operating expenses in fiscal year
2003 by $165,000,000 by requiring the users of Coast Guard
services to cover those costs. The Committee has, again,
rejected this approach and provided sufficient appropriations
to cover all of the Coast Guard's needs.
Marine Fire and Safety Association.--The Committee remains
supportive of efforts by the Marine Fire and Safety Association
(MFSA) to provide specialized firefighting training and
maintain an oil spill response contingency plan for the
Columbia River. The Committee encourages the Secretary to
provide funding for MFSA consistent with the authorization and
directs the Secretary to provide $312,000 to continue efforts
by the nonprofit organization comprised of numerous fire
departments on both sides of the Columbia River. The funding
will be utilized to provide specialized communications,
firefighting training and equipment, and to implement the oil
spill response contingency plan for the Columbia River.
Great Lakes Pilotage.--The Committee is informed that the
Great Lakes ports collectively petitioned the Coast Guard in
July 2001 to publish for public comment a proposed plan to
streamline and modernize the pilotage system on the Great
Lakes. The Committee is concerned that the Coast Guard has not
acted on this petition. The Committee urges the Coast Guard to
seek public comment on this issue.
AMSEA.--The Committee recommends $350,000 to be available
only to continue this marine safety training program that
trains fishermen and children in cold water safety techniques.
Oil spill prevention, 13th District.--Within the amount
provided, the Committee has provided $1,600,000 for enhanced
oil spill prevention activities in the waters of Washington
State. These additional funds shall be under the sole control
of the Captain of the Port-Puget Sound and will be in addition
to any and all funds that would normally be allocated for
marine environmental protection activities to that unit under
the President's budget request. The Captain of the Port-Puget
Sound is the Federal official solely responsible for preventing
the accidental release of oil from tankers entering the Straits
of Juan de Fuca and Puget Sound. As such, the Committee expects
the Captain of the Port to use his professional judgment in
allocating these funds to measures that he believes will best
protect these waters. Such measures could include a cost
sharing arrangement with the State of Washington for the hiring
of a rescue tug at Neah Bay. However, these funds could be
allocated to alternative measures if, in the view of the
Captain of the Port, such alternative measures will provide a
superior level of protection. The Committee expects the
Commandant to forward to the Committee a spend plan for these
funds once the Captain of the Port has decided on the
appropriate approach to enhancing environmental protection in
his area of operation.
Station Indian River Inlet Staffing.--The Committee is
aware that a staffing shortage may exist at Coast Guard Station
Indian River Inlet following the addition of new security
requirements. The station, which is currently staffed by nine
personnel, acts as the gateway to the ports of Wilmington,
Delaware and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The men and women at
this station maintain a safe and secure waterway for vessels
traveling to these ports. They also provide waterside security
for the Salem Nuclear Power Plant, bridges over navigational
waters, oil refineries and tourist attractions along the
Delaware River, Delaware Bay and Delaware's Atlantic Coast. As
such, the Commandant is directed to evaluate the staffing
levels at this station to determine if additional staffing is
necessary.
Coastwise Endorsements.--More than 5 years after Congress
enacted section 113(d) of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of
1996 (now codified at 46 U.S.C. 12106(e)), the Agency has yet
to promulgate regulations implementing the provision. The
Committee is concerned that the resulting lack of Federal
direction could allow control over U.S. coastwise vessels by
foreign companies who may use tax and other advantages to
compete unfairly with U.S. companies in domestic commerce. The
Congressional intent in 1996, which has not changed in enacting
section 113(d), was to provide U.S.-based coastwise vessel
operators with broadened sources of investment capital. At no
time did Congress intend that section 113(d) be interpreted as
a means of undermining the integrity of the Jones Act and
related Maritime Cabotage laws. Until the rule implementing
subsection 12106(e) is published in final form, the Committee
expects the Coast Guard to ensure that any application approved
under this provision is fully consistent with the intent of
Congress as stated in the 1996 Conference Report.
Datum marker buoys (DMBs).--The Committee allowance
includes not less than $1,000,000 for the continued procurement
of Datum Marker Buoys.
Maritime Electro-Optical Infrared (EO/IR) Handheld and
Fixed Sensors.--Within the funds provided, the Committee
provides $5,000,000 for Maritime Electro-Optical Sensors. Of
this amount, $3,000,000 shall be derived from budget category
IV G and $2,000,000 from the additional funds provided. These
sensors are on cutters, patrol boats, as well as for Marine
Safety Offices and Marine Safety and Security Teams. They will
assist in both the maritime safety and security mission goals
by enabling Coast Guard personnel to conduct maritime
operations safely and effectively at night and in adverse
weather conditions.
Coast Guard Yard.--The Committee recognizes the Coast Guard
Yard at Curtis Bay, Maryland is a critical component of the
Coast Guard's core logistics capability that directly supports
fleet readiness. The Committee further recognizes that the yard
has been a vital part of the Coast Guard's readiness
infrastructure for more than 100 years and believes that
sufficient industrial work should be assigned to the Yard to
maintain this capability.
Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Trust Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2002 \1\........................................ $616,354,000 $20,000,000 $636,354,000
Budget estimate, 2003 \2\....................................... 705,000,000 20,000,000 725,000,000
Committee recommendation........................................ .............. .............. 725,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes reduction of $294,000 pursuant to Public Law 107-87 and 107-117.
\2\ Excludes $1,266,000 in civilian and $9,580,000 in military accurals.
This appropriation provides for the major acquisition,
construction, and improvement of vessels, aircraft, shore
units, and aids to navigation operated and maintained by the
Coast Guard. Currently, the Coast Guard has in operation
approximately 250 cutters, ranging in size from 65-foot tugs to
a 420-foot polar icebreakers, more than 2,000 boats, and an
inventory of more than 200 helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft.
The Coast Guard also operates approximately 600 stations,
support and supply centers, communications facilities, and
other shore units. The Coast Guard maintains over 48,000
navigational aids--buoys, fixed aids, lighthouses, and radio
navigational stations.
committee recommendation
The recommended bill provides $725,000,000 for acquisition,
construction, and improvements, including $20,000,000 from the
oil spill liability trust fund. This represents an increase of
$88,646,000 (14 percent) above last year's enacted level and is
the same as the budget request.
The following table summarizes the Committee's programmatic
recommendations:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 Fiscal year 2003 Committee
enacted \1\ estimate recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vessels.................................................... $89,640,000 $13,600,000 $13,600,000
Integrated Deepwater Systems Program....................... 320,190,000 500,000,000 480,000,000
Aircraft................................................... 9,500,000 ................ ...............
Other equipment............................................ 79,293,000 117,700,000 117,700,000
Shore facilities and aids to navigation.................... 73,100,000 28,700,000 45,700,000
Personnel and related support.............................. 64,631,000 65,000,000 65,000,000
----------------------------------------------------
Total................................................ 636,354,000 725,000,000 725,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes reduction of $294,000 rescission pursuant to Public Laws 107-87 and 108-117.
The following table compares the fiscal year 2002 enacted
level, the fiscal year 2003 estimate, and the recommended level
by program, project, and activity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Program name -------------------------------- Committee
2002 enacted 2003 estimate recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vessels:
Survey and design--cutters and boats........................ $500,000 $400,000 $400,000
Seagoing buoytenders (WLB) replacement...................... 68,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000
Polar class reliability improvement (RIP)................... 4,490,000 2,200,000 2,200,000
41 foot utility boat replacement............................ 12,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000
85 foot fast patrol craft................................... 4,650,000 .............. ..............
Alex Haley conversion....................................... .............. 3,000,000 3,000,000
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal vessels.......................................... 89,640,000 13,600,000 13,600,000
===============================================
Integrated Deepwater Systems program (IDS):
Aircraft.................................................... 35,700,000 138,200,000 135,200,000
Surface ships............................................... 36,700,000 215,700,000 212,700,000
C4ISR....................................................... 106,500,000 .............. ..............
Logistics................................................... 71,200,000 71,600,000 66,600,000
Other contracts............................................. 39,800,000 43,500,000 36,500,000
Government Program Management............................... 30,300,000 31,000,000 29,000,000
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal IDS.............................................. 320,200,000 500,000,000 480,000,000
Aircraft:
Aviation parts and support.................................. 9,000,000 .............. ..............
C130J system provisioning and training analyses............. 500,000 .............. ..............
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal aircraft......................................... 9,500,000 .............. ..............
===============================================
Other Equipment:
Ports and Waterways Safety Systems (PAWSS).................. 6,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000
Marine information for safety & law enforcement............. 7,450,000 .............. ..............
National distress system modernization...................... 42,000,000 90,000,000 90,000,000
Defense message system implementation....................... 1,500,000 2,100,000 2,100,000
Commercial satellite communication.......................... 1,500,000 .............. ..............
Global maritime distress and safety system.................. 2,200,000 2,200,000 2,200,000
Search and rescue capabilities.............................. 1,320,000 .............. ..............
Thirteenth district microwave modernization................. 800,000 3,000,000 3,000,000
Hawaii Rainbow communications system........................ 3,100,000 3,000,000 3,000,000
High frequency recapitalizaion & modernization.............. 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000
Prince William Sound Microwave wide-area.................... .............. 1,000,000 1,000,000
Command center readiness/infrastructure..................... 727,000 .............. ..............
P-250 pump replacement...................................... 2,046,000 .............. ..............
Configuration management--phase II.......................... 3,000,000 .............. ..............
Self-contained breathing apparatus.......................... 1,000,000 .............. ..............
Maritime electro-optical sensors............................ 4,000,000 .............. ..............
Ice detecting radar--Cordova, AK............................ 650,000 .............. ..............
Maritime domain awareness information....................... .............. 9,400,000 9,400,000
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal other equipment.................................. 79,293,000 117,700,000 117,700,000
===============================================
Shore Facilities & aids to navigation:
Survey and design--shore projects........................... 4,000,000 2,500,000 2,500,000
Minor AC&I shore construction projects...................... 4,000,000 4,900,000 4,900,000
Housing..................................................... 13,500,000 7,000,000 7,000,000
Waterways ATON projects..................................... 5,500,000 4,900,000 4,900,000
Rebuild Station Port Huron, MI.............................. 3,100,000 .............. ..............
Consolidate warehouse--CG Yard, MD.......................... 12,600,000 .............. ..............
Construct new station--Brunswick, GA........................ 3,600,000 .............. ..............
Replace utilities, ISC building Number 8--Boston, MA........ 1,600,000 .............. ..............
Construct engineering bldg, ISC Honolulu, HI................ 7,200,000 .............. ..............
Consolidate Kodiak aviation support--Kodiak, AK............. 5,700,000 4,000,000 4,000,000
Reconstruct north wall, Escanaba Municipal dock............. 300,000 .............. ..............
Rebuild ISC Seattle Pier 36--Phase I........................ 10,000,000 .............. 16,000,000
CG Marine safety & rescue station, Chicago, IL.............. 2,000,000 .............. ..............
Vessel pier facility, Cordova Ak............................ .............. .............. 4,000,000
Station Manistee, MI construction........................... .............. 5,400,000 5,400,000
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal shore facilities................................. 73,100,000 28,700,000 48,700,000
===============================================
Personnel and Related Support:
Direct personnel costs...................................... 63,931,000 64,500,000 64,500,000
Core acquisition costs...................................... 700,000 500,000 500,000
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal personnel and related support.................... 64,631,000 65,000,000 65,000,000
===============================================
Total appropriation....................................... 636,354,000 725,000,000 725,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
vessels
Response Boat Small.--The Committee notes that the Coast
Guard is procuring a new standard small boat to provide the
lower range capability of its shore-based response system.
These Response Boats will be procured under an indefinite
delivery, indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contract for a period of
seven years, with an initial purchase quantity of 100 boats and
a maximum quantity of 700. The Committee notes with concern,
however, that the Coast Guard in the FRP has specified a
specific design technology for the outboard motors that will
power the Response Boat Small fleet.
It has been reported to the Committee that the decision on
the specified engine technology may have been based on an out-
of-date survey. The Committee, however, is more concerned that
a Coast Guard FRP would still limit competition by mandating a
specific engine technology rather than use a performance-based
specification to maximize competition while ensuring all basic
requirements are met this far into the era of procurement
reform.
Accordingly, prior to exercising any options beyond the
purchase of the first 100 boats, the Coast Guard may modify the
contract to be either a pure performance-based specification or
to specifically allow both direct injection and four-stroke
engines to be considered by boat manufacturers as long as they
meet the requisite performance and environmental criteria and
such a change is merited based on the results of the most
recent internal Coast Guard study.
INTEGRATED DEEPWATER SYSTEMS PROGRAM
The Committee has provided $480,000,000 for the Integrated
Deepwater Systems (IDS) program, which is $159,800,000 or 50
percent more than the fiscal year 2002 enacted level and
$20,000,000 less the budget request.
NATIONAL DISTRESS AND RESPONSE SYSTEM MODERNIZATION PROGRAM
The Committee recommends $90,000,000 requested for the
modernization of the National Distress and Response System
(NDRS), which is effectively the maritime 911 system for
mariners in distress.
other equipment
The Committee provided $117,700,000 for Other Equipment
which is the same as the budget request.
shore facilities and aids to navigation
Minor AC&I Shore Construction Projects.--The Committee
recommends $4,900,000 for Minor AC&I shore constructions
projects, which is the same as the budget request. Within the
funds provided, $400,000 is provided for construction of
engineering building at U.S. Coast Guard Station Portsmouth
Harbor in New Castle, New Hampshire.
Rebuild ISC Seattle Pier 36--Phase I.--The Committee
recommendation includes an additional $16,000,000 for costs
associated with repairing and rebuilding the Coast Guard's
Integrated Support Center at Pier 36 in Seattle. Now that a
decision has been made not to move the Integrated Support
Center to an alternative site, the Committee believes it is
time to move out rapidly to replace the aging infrastructure at
pier 36 and give the Coast Guard personnel that work there a
safe and appropriate working environment. With the funds
provided for this initiative in this bill and in prior
Appropriations Acts including the Supplemental Appropriations
Act for fiscal year 2002, there is now adequate funding to
fully cover the cost of design and construction of major
elements of this project. The Committee directs the Commandant
to submit an anticipated spend plan and construction schedule
for this initiative prior to conference committee action on
this bill.
BILL LANGUAGE
Capital investment plan.--The bill maintains the
requirement for the Coast Guard to submit a 5-year capital
investment plan with initial submission of the President's
budget request. This requirement was first established in
fiscal year 2001.
Disposal of real property.--The bill maintains the
provision enacted in fiscal year 2001 crediting to this
appropriation proceeds from the sale or lease of the Coast
Guard's surplus real property and providing that such receipts
are available for obligation only for the national distress and
response system modernization program.
Environmental Compliance and Restoration
Appropriations, 2002 \1\................................ $16,927,000
Budget estimate, 2003 \2\............................... 17,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 17,000,000
\1\ Excludes reduction of $9,000 pursuant to Public Laws 107-87 and 107-
117.
\2\ Excludes $218,000 in civilian and $68,000 in military accruals.
The Environmental Compliance and Restoration account
provides funds to address environmental problems at former and
current Coast Guard units as required by applicable Federal,
State, and local environmental laws and regulations. Planned
expenditures for these funds include major upgrades to
petroleum and regulated-substance storage tanks, restoration of
contaminated ground water and soils, remediation efforts at
hazardous substance disposal sites, and initial site surveys
and actions necessary to bring Coast Guard shore facilities and
vessels into compliance with environmental laws and
regulations.
The recommended bill provides $17,000,000 for environmental
compliance and restoration. The recommendation is the same as
the budget request.
Alteration of Bridges
(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)
Appropriations, 2002.................................... $15,466,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................................
Committee recommendation................................ 14,000,000
The ``Alteration of bridges'' appropriation provides funds
for the Coast Guard's share of the cost of altering or removing
bridges obstructive to navigation. Under the provisions of the
Truman-Hobbs Act of June 21, 1940, as amended (33 U.S.C. 511 et
seq.), the Coast Guard, as the Federal Government's agent, is
required to share with owners the cost of altering railroad and
publicly owned highway bridges which obstruct the free movement
of navigation on navigable waters of the United States in
accordance with the formula established in 33 U.S.C. 516.
Alteration of obstructive highway bridges is eligible for
funding from the Federal-Aid Highways program.
The Committee has provided an appropriation from the
highway trust fund of $14,000,000 for the alteration of
bridges, which is the same as the budget request.
The Committee recommendation is to be distributed as
follows:
Committee
Bridge and Location recommendation
Chelsea Street Bridge Project, Boston, MA............... $2,000,000.00
EJ&E Railroad Bridge, Morris, IL........................ 1,000,000.00
Fourteen Mile CSX Railroad Bridge, Mobile, AL........... 5,000,000.00
John F. Limehouse Bridge, Charleston, SC................ 1,500,000.00
Florida Avenue Bridge, New Orleans, LA.................. 4,500,000.00
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................... 14,000,000.00
EJ&E Bridge.--The Committee is concerned about the
alteration of the EJ&E railroad bridge near Morris, Illinois.
To date, the Committee has provided more than $6,500,000 for
this important bridge project in fiscal years 2000, 2001, and
2002. It is the Committee's understanding that design and
engineering work has been completed. The Committee provides
$1,000,000 for this bridge project and directs the Coast Guard
to initiate construction on this project.
Retired Pay
Appropriations, 2002 (mandatory)........................ $876,346,000
Budget estimate, 2003 (mandatory).......................................
Committee recommendation (mandatory).................... 889,000,000
The ``Retired pay'' appropriation provides for retired pay
of military personnel of the Coast Guard and Coast Guard
Reserve, members of the former Lighthouse Service, and for
annuities payable to beneficiaries of retired military
personnel under the retired serviceman's family protection plan
(10 U.S.C. 1431-1446) and survivor benefit plan (10 U.S.C.
1447-1455), payments for career status bonuses under the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, and
for payments for medical care of retired personnel and their
dependents under the Dependents Medical Care Act.
Coast Guard Military Retirement Fund
Appropriations, 2002 (mandatory)........................................
Budget estimate, 2003 (mandatory)....................... $889,000,000
Committee recommendation (mandatory)....................................
The Administration proposed legislation in October 2001, to
accrue fully the retirement costs of Coast Guard military
personnel (as well as the Public Health Service and National
Oceanic and Atmospheric administration Commissioned Corps). The
account will make payments to current retirees, receive the
accrual payments from Coast Guard accounts for current active
duty members, and receive a payment for unfunded liabilities of
Coast Guard personnel.
The program also provides for retired pay of military
personnel of the Coast Guard Reserve, members of the former
Lighthouse Service, and for annuities payable to the
beneficiaries of retired military personnel under the retired
Serviceman's family protection plan (10 U.S.C. 1431-46) and the
survivor benefit plans (10 U.S.C. 1447-55); payments for career
status bonuses under the National Defense Authorization Act;
and payments for medical care of retired personnel and their
dependents under the Dependents Medical Care Act (10 U.S.C.,
ch. 55).
As discussed earlier in this report, the Committee has not
appropriated funds based on the administration's proposed
legislation as no action has been taken to enact this proposal
by the Committee of jurisdiction.
Reserve Training
Appropriations, 2002 \1\................................ $83,194,000
Budget estimate, 2003 \2\............................... 86,522,000
Committee recommendation................................ 86,522,000
\1\ Excludes reduction of $41,000 pursuant Public Laws 107-87 and 107-
117.
\2\ Excludes $303,000 civilian and $26,000,000 military accruals.
Under the provisions of 14 U.S.C. 145, the Secretary of
Transportation is required to adequately support the
development and training of a Reserve force to ensure that the
Coast Guard will be sufficiently organized, manned, and
equipped to fully perform its wartime missions. The purpose of
the Reserve training program is to provide trained units and
qualified persons for active duty in the Coast Guard in time of
war or national emergency, or at such other times as the
national security requires. Coast Guard reservists must also
train for mobilization assignments that are unique to the Coast
Guard in times of war, such as port security operations
associated with the Coast Guard's Maritime Defense Zone [MDZ]
mission, and deployable port security units associated with the
international Defense Operations mission.
The recommended bill includes $86,522,000 for reserve
training, which is the budget request.
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Trust Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2002 \1\........................................ $16,730,000 $3,492,000 $20,222,000
Budget estimate, 2003 \2\....................................... 19,606,000 3,500,000 22,000,000
Committee recommendation........................................ .............. .............. 22,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes reduction of $6,000 pursuant to Public Laws 107-87 and 107-117.
\2\ Excludes $328,000 and $778,000 military accurals.
The Coast Guard's Research and Development Program seeks to
improve the tools and techniques with which Coast Guard carries
out its varied operational missions and to increase the
knowledge base upon which it depends to fulfill its regulatory
responsibilities.
The recommended bill provides a funding level of
$22,000,000 for research and development projects, which is
with the budget request. Of this amount $3,500,000 is to be
derived from the oil spill liability trust fund. This
recommendation is consistent with the budget request.
Engineered Wood Composites Technology.--The Committee is
aware of engineered wood composites technology developed by the
University of Maine. Engineered Wood Composites are designed to
reduce maintenance cost and extend the useful life of
waterfront structures. A total of $3,000,000 is provided within
the funds made available to support the continued development,
demonstration and evaluation of engineered wood composites at
Coast Guard facilities including the U.S. Coast Guard Stations
in Jonesport and Southwest Harbor ME.
Spectral Imaging Technology.--Within the funds provided,
$2,500,000 is included for a pilot project to test automatic
Search and Rescue Spectral Imaging technology for Coast Guard
C-130 at Kalaeloa, Hawaii
Maritime Domain Awareness Information.--The Committee is
aware of the need to improve maritime domain awareness and
encourages the Coast Guard to investigate designing and
installing a Maritime Domain Awareness Surveillance System
demonstration project in an effort to improve port security.
Meteorological and Marine Observation Systems.--Within the
funds provided, $250,000 is included for a prototype
observation system in the Lower Chesapeake Bay. The Committee
believes that such a system will improve short-and long-term
predictions of phenomenon facilitating safe and efficient
maritime operations.
Boat Safety
(AQUATIC RESOURCES TRUST FUND)
Appropriations, 2002 (mandatory)........................ $64,000,000
Budget estimate, 2003 (mandatory)....................... 64,000,000
Committee recommendation (mandatory).................... 64,000,000
This account provides financial assistance for a
coordinated National Recreational Boating Safety Program for
the several States. Title 46, United States Code, section
13106, establishes a ``Boat safety'' account from which the
Secretary may allocate and distribute matching funds to assist
in the development, administration, and financing of qualifying
State programs. The ``Boat safety'' account consists of amounts
transferred from the highway trust fund which are derived from
the motorboat fuel tax (18.4 cents per gallon).
The Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century
provides $64,000,000 of mandatory funding from the ``Aquatic
Resources Trust fund'' annually for this program. Of this
amount, $59,000,000 is provided for grants to States and
$5,000,000 for Coast Guard administration. The President's
budget requests no discretionary appropriations for fiscal year
2003.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Vessel traffic safety fairway, Santa Barbara/San
Francisco.--The bill retains a general provision (sec. 312)
that would prohibit funds to plan, finalize, or implement
regulations that would establish a vessel traffic safety
fairway less than 5 miles wide between the Santa Barbara
traffic separation scheme and the San Francisco traffic
separation scheme. On April 27, 1989, the Department published
a notice of proposed rulemaking that would narrow the
originally proposed 5-mile-wide fairway to two 1-mile-wide
fairways separated by a 2-mile-wide area where off-shore oil
rigs could be built if Lease Sale 119 goes forward. Under this
revised proposal, vessels would be routed in close proximity to
oil rigs because the 2-mile-wide non-fairway corridor could
contain drilling rigs at the edge of the fairways. The
Committee is concerned that this rule, if implemented, could
increase the threat of offshore oil accidents off the
California coast. Accordingly, the bill continues the language
prohibiting the implementation of this regulation.
Quarterly acquisition reports.--The bill retains a general
provision (sec. 341) requiring that the Coast Guard submit a
quarterly report regarding the status of major acquisition
programs.
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
Summary of Fiscal Year 2003 Program
The Federal Aviation Administration traces its origins to
the Air Commerce Act of 1926, but more recently to the Federal
Aviation Act of 1958 which established the independent Federal
Aviation Agency from functions which had resided in the Airways
Modernization Board, the Civil Aeronautics Administration, and
parts of the Civil Aeronautics Board. FAA became an
administration of the Department of Transportation on April 1,
1967, pursuant to the Department of Transportation Act (October
15, 1966).
The total recommended program level for the FAA for fiscal
year 2003 amounts to $13,586,225,000, $4,000,000 more than the
President's budget request. The following table summarizes the
Committee's recommendations:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
Program 2002 enacted 2003 budget recommendation
\1\ estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations................................................... 6,893,567 7,077,203 7,081,203
General fund appropriation............................... 1,112,481 3,277,925 3,281,925
Trust fund appropriation................................. 5,773,519 3,799,278 3,799,278
Aviation user fees....................................... 7,567 ............... ...............
Facilities and equipment..................................... 2,914,000 2,981,022 2,981,022
Research, engineering, and development....................... 195,000 124,000 124,000
Grants-in-Aid for Airports................................... 3,300,000 3,400,000 3,400,000
--------------------------------------------------
Total available budget resources....................... 13,302,567 13,582,225 13,586,225
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not reflect rescissions and reductions pursuant to Public Law 107-87 and 107-117, nor supplemental
appropriations pursuant to Public Law 107-117.
\2\ Excludes CSRS/FEHB accurals.
Operations
Appropriations, 2002 \1\................................ $6,886,000,000
Budget estimate, 2003................................... 7,077,203,000
Committee recommendation................................ 7,081,203,000
\1\ Does not reflect TASC reductions of $2,820,000 pursuant to Public
Law 107-87 and Public Law 107-117, nor supplemental appropriations of
$200,000,000 pursuant to Public Law 107-117 or $7,567,000 in aviation
user fees.
\2\ Excludes CSRS/FEHB accruals.
FAA's ``Operations'' appropriation provides funds for the
operation, maintenance, communications, and logistic support of
the air traffic control and navigation systems and activities.
It also covers the administration and management of the
regulatory, commercial space, medical, engineering, and
development programs.
The bill includes $3,799,278,000 for the operations
activities of the Federal Aviation Administration from the
airport and airway trust fund. The balance of the operations
appropriation will come from the general fund.
As in past years, FAA is directed to report immediately to
the Committees on Appropriations in the event resources are
insufficient to operate a safe and effective air traffic
control system.
The following table summarizes the Committee's
recommendation in comparison to the budget estimate:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002 program 2003 budget Committee
level \1\ estimate \2\ recommendations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air traffic services.................................. 5,446,872 5,697,537 5,696,037
Aviation regulation and certification................. 767,649 833,967 839,467
Civil aviation security............................... 149,605 .................. .................
Research and acquisitions............................. 195,559 207,600 207,600
Commercial space transportation....................... 12,416 12,325 12,325
Regional coordination................................. 85,735 82,192 82,192
Human resources....................................... 69,282 80,260 80,260
Financial services.................................... 50,178 48,782 48,782
Staff offices......................................... 108,704 84,890 84,890
Information Services.................................. ................. 29,650 29,650
---------------------------------------------------------
Total........................................... 6,886,000 7,077,203 7,081,203
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not reflect TASC reductions of $2,820,000 pursuant to Public Law 107-87 and Public Law 107-117, nor
supplemental appropriations of $200,000,000 pursuant to Public Law 107-117.
\2\ Excludes CSRS/FEHB accruals.
Contract tower program.--The Committee continues to support
the contract tower program and the cost-sharing program as a
cost-effective way to enhance air traffic safety at smaller
airports. The Committee's recommendation includes $78,000,000
to fund the existing contract tower program, the remaining
eligible non-Federal towers not currently operated by the FAA,
and other non-towered airports eligible for the program. In
addition to these resources, the Committee has provided
$6,000,000 for the contract tower cost-sharing program.
Medallion Program.--The Committee recommendation includes
$1,500,000 to continue support for this Government and industry
cooperative program to improve rural air safety in Alaska. The
Medallion program has been overwhelmed with applications, and
this funding will allow an expansion of the program beyond its
original operating plan.
Alien Species Action Plan (ASAP).--The Committee provides
$3,000,000 out of available funds to continue the
implementation of the Alien Species Action Plan which was
adopted by the FAA as part of its August 26, 1998 Record of
Decision approving certain improvements at Kahului Airport on
the Island of Maui. These funds will be used to complete
capital projects that were started in fiscal year 2002 and
continue the operational requirements imposed by the ASAP.
Personnel Reform.--In the Conference Report on the
Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations for 2002,
the Conferees directed the Administrator to report to the House
and Senate Committees on how the agency had implemented and/or
it plans to implement a Senate directive regarding personnel
reform.
The Senate directive referred to Senate Report 107-38,
Department of Transportation and Related Agencies
Appropriations for 2002, that expressed the Committee's concern
over the failure of the agency to implement a ratified
agreement with the American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees and instructed the agency to implement the
ratified agreement immediately.
Both the Committee and the Conferees expected that the
personnel reform directive would be followed so that the agency
could achieve the improved productivity gains negotiated by the
agency. Since the agency was unresponsive to the Senate
directive and continued to obstruct implementation of the
agreement, the Committee expects the Administrator to
immediately implement the ratified agreement and instructs the
agency to do so.
National airspace redesign.--Of the funds provided for the
activity, $8,500,000 shall be for the NY/NJ Airspace Redesign
effort and shall not be reprogrammed by the FAA for other
activities, including airspace redesign activities outside the
NY/NJ metro area. As the FAA moves forward with its redesign
program in the New York/New Jersey and Philadelphia area, the
Committee encourages the FAA, where appropriate, to consider
air noise impacts as part of the redesign effort.
Spaceport licensing procedures.--The Committee is aware
that the State of Oklahoma has a variety of locations that are
ideal for orbital launches dues to low population density and
existing infrastructure. As such, the State of Oklahoma has
been working to develop a spaceport. The Committee strongly
encourages the FAA Administrator to provide the necessary
technical assistance and financial resources to assist with the
licensing procedures for this potential spaceport.
Non-precision GPS approaches.--The Committee recommendation
includes $5,000,000 to continue with the work associated with
increasing the number of non-precision GPS instrument
approaches developed and published for airports that are not
Part 139 certificated. Of these funds, $1,500,000 is only for
the Office of Regulation and Certification (AVR) to develop
advisory materials and policy guidelines for the general
aviation community.
Inspector technical training.--In March, 2002, the FAA
released the results of a study which evaluated the commercial
airplane certification process. One of the major findings of
the study is that the FAA, airlines and aircraft manufacturers
have not adequately communicated important safety information
within and among their organizations. The study also concluded
that proper training and adequate hands-on experience are
essential to ensure that safety inspectors identify potential
safety hazards. The Committee has provided $4,000,000 more than
the President's request to provide additional technical
training for FAA's aviation safety inspectors as the agency
moves forward with the implementation of its Operational
Evolution Plan (OEP). Specifically, the additional funding will
provide necessary training for inspectors in order to properly
certify pilots and aircraft in the Reduced Vertical Separation
Minimums. The Committee also encourages the FAA to develop a
plan to improve the coordination and communication process
between the FAA's flight standards and aircraft certification
offices.
Facilities and Equipment
(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)
Appropriations, 2002 \1\................................ $2,914,000,000
Budget estimate, 2003................................... 2,981,022,000
Committee recommendation................................ 2,981,022,000
\1\ Does not reflect $108,500,000 of supplemental appropriations
pursuant to Public Law 107-117 or rescission of $15,000,000 of
unobligated balances pursuant to Public Law 107-87.
\2\ Excludes CSRS/FEHB accruals.
Under the ``Facilities and equipment'' appropriation,
safety, capacity and efficiency of the Federal airway system
are improved by the procurement and installation of new
equipment and the construction and modernization of facilities
to keep pace with aeronautical activity and in accordance with
the Federal Aviation Administration's comprehensive capital
investment plan [CIP], formerly called the national airspace
system [NAS] plan.
The Federal Aviation Administration's most recent estimate
is that it will spend approximately $41,901,000,000 on the Air
Traffic Control Modernization effort from 1981 through 2004.
The bill includes an appropriation of $2,981,022,000 for
the facilities and equipment of the Federal Aviation
Administration. The Committee's recommended distributions of
the funds for each of the major accounts are as follows:
FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Committee
Program name 2002 enacted 2003 estimate recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Activity 1, Improve Aviation Safety:
Reduce Commercial Aviation Fatalities:
Terminal Business Unit............................... $160,355,000 $141,000,000 $161,300,000
Aviation Weather Services Improvements............... 22,520,000 23,440,000 23,440,000
Low Level Windshear Alert System (LLWAS)--Upgrade.... 1,533,000 1,600,000 1,600,000
Aviation Safety Analysis System (ASAS)............... 22,100,000 21,700,000 21,700,000
Integrated Flight Quality Assurance.................. 2,000,000 500,000 500,000
Safety Performance Analysis System (SPAS)............ 2,100,000 2,100,000 2,100,000
Performance Enhancement Systems (PENS)............... 2,500,000 2,600,000 2,600,000
Aviation Weather Services Improvements (CWIS)........ 5,000,000 ............... ...............
Reduce General Aviation Fatalities: Safe Flight 21....... 39,300,000 29,800,000 32,800,000
Other Aviation Safety Programs:
Advanced Technology Development and Prototyping...... 55,991,000 41,100,000 41,600,000
Aircraft Related Equipment Program................... 7,500,000 16,000,000 16,000,000
National Aviation Safety Data Analysis Center 1,800,000 2,000,000 2,000,000
(NASDAC)............................................
Explosive Detection Technology....................... 97,500,000 121,500,000 55,000,000
Aircraft Fleet Modernization......................... 1,500,000 ............... ...............
Volcano Monitoring................................... 2,000,000 ............... 3,000,000
--------------------------------------------------
Total, Activity 1.................................. 423,699,000 403,340,000 363,640,000
==================================================
Activity 2, Improve the Efficiency of the Air Traffic Control
System:
Increase the Number of Flights Handled by Airports:
Terminal Business Unit............................... 490,518,059 551,035,496 534,601,496
Aeronautical Data Link (ADL) Applications............ 38,113,200 33,200,000 29,700,000
Free Flight Phase 2.................................. 69,900,000 106,200,000 96,200,000
Air Traffic Management (ATM)......................... 49,300,000 13,000,000 13,000,000
Free Flight Phase 1.................................. 122,570,000 39,900,000 39,900,000
Automated Surface Observing System (ASOS)............ 13,280,000 12,100,000 12,100,000
Improve Routing Efficiency for Flights En Route:
Next Generation VHF Air/Ground Communications System 34,950,000 71,100,000 71,100,000
(NEXCOM)............................................
En Route Automation Program.......................... 46,200,000 71,050,000 75,250,000
Weather and Radar Processor (WARP)................... 24,171,000 13,600,000 13,600,000
Long Range Radar Sustainment......................... ............... ............... 7,500,000
Improve Overall NAS Efficiency:
Air Traffic Operations Management System (ATOMS)..... 1,000,000 1,100,000 1,100,000
NAS Management Automation Program (NASMAP)........... 1,100,000 1,900,000 1,900,000
--------------------------------------------------
Total, Activity 2.................................. 891,102,259 914,185,496 895,951,496
==================================================
Activity 3, Increase Capacity of the NAS:
Increase Capability of En Route Systems to Handle
Flights:
Navigation and Landing Aids.......................... 272,589,200 249,800,000 295,735,000
Oceanic Automation System............................ 88,100,000 87,400,000 76,349,000
Gulf of Mexico Offshore Program...................... 6,900,000 2,300,000 2,300,000
Voice Switching and Control System (VSCS)............ 16,000,000 14,000,000 14,000,000
Transponder Landing System........................... 6,000,000 ............... 12,000,000
--------------------------------------------------
Total, Activity 3.................................. 389,589,200 353,500,000 400,384,000
==================================================
Activity 4, Improve Reliability of the NAS:
Replace Terminal Equipment to Prevent Decreased
Performance:
Guam CERAP--Relocate................................. 6,400,000 5,000,000 5,000,000
Terminal Voice Switch Replacement (TVSR)/Enhanced 20,000,000 6,200,000 17,200,000
Terminal Voice Switch...............................
Airport Cable Loop Systems--Sustained Support........ 4,000,000 4,000,000 5,500,000
Replace En Route Equipment to Prevent Decreased
Performance:
En Route Automation Program.......................... 155,863,000 142,800,000 147,500,000
ARTCC Building Improvements/Plant Improvements....... 44,000,000 40,200,000 40,200,000
Air Traffic Management (ATM)......................... 24,500,000 24,500,000 24,500,000
Replace Supporting Systems that Impact Overall NAS
Performance:
Critical Telecommunications Support.................. 1,900,000 1,000,000 1,000,000
FAA Telecommunications Infrastructure (FTI).......... 39,000,000 46,600,000 46,600,000
Air/Ground Communications Infrastructure............. 30,700,000 22,800,000 22,800,000
Voice Recorder Replacement Program (VRRP)............ 6,000,000 3,300,000 3,300,000
NAS Infrastructure Management System (NIMS).......... 16,000,000 29,100,000 29,100,000
Flight Service Station (FSS) Modernization........... 4,700,000 5,700,000 5,700,000
FSAS Operational and Supportability Implementation 33,943,000 19,710,000 19,710,000
System (OASIS)......................................
Weather Message Switching Center Replacement (WMSCR). 2,500,000 2,000,000 2,000,000
Flight Service Station Switch Modernization.......... 10,000,000 13,200,000 13,200,000
Alaskan NAS Interfacility Communications System 4,000,000 2,900,000 4,000,000
(ANICS).............................................
Electrical Power Systems--Sustain/Support............ 54,200,000 50,700,000 50,700,000
NAS Recovery Communications (RCOM)................... 4,800,000 9,400,000 9,400,000
Aeronautical Center Infrastructure Modernization..... 12,000,000 11,700,000 11,700,000
Frequency and Spectrum Engineering................... 3,000,000 2,600,000 2,600,000
--------------------------------------------------
Total, Activity 4.................................. 453,006,000 443,410,000 461,710,000
==================================================
Activity 5, Improve the Efficiency of Mission Support:
Increase Efficiency of Investment Management:
NAS Improvement of System Support Laboratory......... 2,300,000 2,700,000 2,700,000
Technical Center Facilities.......................... 10,250,000 12,000,000 12,000,000
William J. Hughes Technical Center Infrastructure 2,900,000 3,000,000 3,000,000
Sustainment.........................................
En Route Communications and Control Facilities 1,540,280 1,057,953 1,307,953
Improvements........................................
DOD/FAA Facilities Transfer.......................... 2,800,000 1,200,000 3,200,000
Terminal Communications--Improve..................... 936,700 1,249,299 1,249,299
Flight Service Facilities Improvement................ 1,202,100 1,223,235 1,223,235
Navigation and Landing Aids--Improve................. 2,525,361 5,034,017 5,034,017
FAA Buildings and Equipment.......................... 11,700,000 11,000,000 11,000,000
Air Navigational Aids and ATC Facilities (Local Proj- 2,000,000 2,100,000 2,100,000
ects)..............................................
Computer Aided Engineering and Graphics (CAEG) 2,600,000 2,800,000 2,800,000
Modernization.......................................
Information Technology Integration................... 1,500,000 1,600,000 1,600,000
Operational Data Management System (ODMS)............ 3,000,000 10,300,000 10,300,000
Logistics Support Systems and Facilities (LSSF)...... 5,000,000 9,300,000 5,000,000
Test Equipment--Maintenance Support for Replace- 900,000 1,700,000 1,700,000
ment................................................
Facility Security Risk Management.................... 22,400,000 37,300,000 37,300,000
Information Security................................. 13,600,000 13,291,000 13,291,000
Distance Learning.................................... 1,300,000 1,300,000 1,300,000
National Airspace System (NAS) Training Facilities... ............... 2,300,000 2,300,000
System Engineering and Development Support........... 26,300,000 25,800,000 25,800,000
Program Support Leases............................... 35,500,000 38,400,000 38,400,000
Logistics Support Services (LSS)..................... 7,200,000 7,500,000 7,500,000
Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center--Leases............ 14,600,000 14,600,000 14,600,000
In-Plant NAS Contract Support Services............... 2,800,000 2,900,000 2,900,000
Transition Engineering Support....................... 38,300,000 39,000,000 37,000,000
FAA Corporate Systems Architecture................... 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000
Technical Support Services Contract (TSSC)........... 45,800,000 46,700,000 44,700,000
Resource Tracking Program (RTP)...................... 4,000,000 3,700,000 2,500,000
Center for Advanced Aviation System Development...... 81,543,000 81,364,000 81,364,000
Operational Evolution Plan (OEP)..................... 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000
Minimize Environmental Impact of Aviation Facilities:
NAS Facilities OSHA and Environmental Standards 28,400,000 32,600,000 32,600,000
Compliance..........................................
Fuel Storage Tank Replacement and Monitoring......... 9,300,000 8,500,000 8,500,000
Hazardous Materials Management....................... 21,700,000 20,500,000 20,500,000
--------------------------------------------------
Total, Activity 5.................................. 404,897,441 444,019,504 436,769,504
==================================================
Activity 6, Personnel Compensation, Benefits and Travel:
Personnel and Related Expenses........................... 377,100,000 422,567,000 422,567,000
Account-wide adjustment.................................. -25,393,900 ............... ...............
--------------------------------------------------
Total, All Activities.................................. 2,914,000,000 2,981,022,000 2,981,022,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMPROVE AVIATION SAFETY
Safety and Security Activities.--The Committee recommends
$6,000,000 for additional aviation safety and security
activities within FAA's terminal business unit in activity one.
Within the funds provided, the Committee provides $500,000 for
specialized training to fight and prevent aircraft fires at the
Rocky Mountain Emergency Services Training Center; $500,000 for
aviation security systems upgrades at Daniel Webster College;
and, $5,000,000 to an aviation security and science center at
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University.
Advanced Technology Development and Prototyping.--The
Committee provides $41,600,000 for the advanced development and
prototyping program which is $500,000 more than the President's
budget request. The Committee is aware of a potentially cost
effective technology called the Runway Obstruction Warning
System (ROWS). The Committee has included $500,000 to further
test and develop this technology at the Gulfport-Biloxi
Airport. Also included within the funds provided is $2,000,000
for the airfield improvement program authorized under section
905 of Public Law 106-181. The recommended funding level
includes $5,500,000 to continue the wind profiling and weather
research activities at Juneau, Alaska.
Explosives Detection Technology.--The administration's
budget for FAA ``Facilities and Equipment'' includes
$124,000,000 for Explosives Detection Technology of which
$2,500,000 is for personnel and support costs. Funds for
Explosive Detection Technology were provided in fiscal year
2002 under both the Department of Transportation and Department
of Defense Appropriations bills. Requested funds for fiscal
year 2003 will be used for the deployment of FAA certified
Explosive Detection Systems as well as Threat Image Projection
Systems, Explosive Trace Detection Devices and Computer-Based
Training Platforms. Though this funding has been requested
within the FAA budget, the administration's budget request
assumes that these funds will be transferred to the
Transportation Security Administration. The Committee has fully
funded this activity through a combination of $55,000,000 made
available in the Facilities and Equipment appropriation and
$69,000,000 in transfer funds from other capital accounts in
the bill (Sec. 351). Together, the $124,000,000 is transferred
in the bill to the Transportation Security Administration.
Safe Flight 21.--The Committee recommends $32,800,000 for
Safe Flight 21, which is $3,000,000 more than the budget
request. The Committee is encouraged by the success of the
Capstone initiative and has provided additional funding to
accelerate deployment of the Capstone infrastructure in
Southeastern Alaska. The Committee continues to believe that
Safe Flight 21 technologies show promise of reducing runway
incursions. As the program proceeds, attention should be given
to how this program could promote safer ground traffic at
airports and how ADS-B and other technologies could be used to
address the runway incursion problem.
Volcano Monitor.--The Committee recommendation provides
$3,000,000 to extend the aviation safety benefits of the
seismic monitoring network to remote areas.
Airport Surface Detection Equipment (ASDE-X).--The
Committee provides $104,600,000 for the Airport Surface
Detection Equipment (ASDE-X) program. The amount provided is
$14,300,000 more than the administration's request. The ASDE-X
program will improve runway safety and prevent runway incursion
accidents by improving airport controller situational
awareness. This is achieved by providing visual representation
of the traffic situation on the airport surface to the
controller in the form of aircraft position information, flight
call signs, and by alerting controllers through aural and
visual alarms that a potential accident may occur. The amount
provided above the administration's request will fund the
development of new multi-lateration capability for deployment
at the following high volume ASDE-3 sites: Memphis, Tennessee;
Louisville, Kentucky; St. Louis, Missouri; Dallas, Texas;
Chicago, Illinois; Los Angeles, California; and Atlanta,
Georgia.
IMPROVE THE EFFICIENCY OF THE AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM
New York Integrated Control Complex.--The Committee
recommendation includes $5,000,000 to plan and develop a
facility needed to integrate the New York Air Traffic Control
Center and TRACON, which are currently located 20 miles apart
in outdated facilities. This integration is critical because
the New York-New Jersey airspace, the most congested in the
United States, is currently inefficiently managed due to the
fact that controllers in separate locations must communicate by
telephone under extremely trying circumstances. As a result,
the controllers must be extremely cautious when moving planes
in and out of the airspace. The result is often costly and
exorbitant delays, which in turn generate potential safety
vulnerabilities.
Aeronautical Information and Flight Planning Enhancements
(AIFPE).--Within the En Route Automation Program, the Committee
has provided an additional $4,200,000 for Aeronautical
Information and Flight Planning Enhancements. This additional
funding will provide for new development of hand-off capability
between Canada, the United States and Mexico. At present, this
procedure is currently done manually. The Committee believes
that automating this process will enhance both the safety and
efficiency of controlled aircraft within North America.
Automated surface observing system.--The Committee's
recommendation includes $12,100,000 for the automated surface
observing system program as requested in the President's
budget. Within the funds provided, the Committee includes
$500,000 to implement an automated weather sensor system at the
Driggs-Reed Memorial Airport in Idaho Falls, ID.
Long Range Radar Sustainment (LRRS).--The Committee has
provided $7,500,000 for Long Range Radar Sustainment. The
amount provided is the same as that provided in the recently
enacted Supplemental Appropriations bill of fiscal year 2002.
Together these funds will provide for a $15,000,000 sustainment
program for the ARSR-4 radar systems located on the perimeter
of the United States. While these radars were scheduled to be
decommissioned prior to the events of September 11th, it is now
apparent both to the FAA and Department of Defense that these
aging radars must remain in operation.
Free flight phase two.--The Committee recommendation
includes $96,200,000 for Free Flight Phase II activities. The
recommendation is $26,300,000 more than the fiscal year 2002
enacted level and $10,000,000 less than the budget estimate.
Within the available funds, the Committee has provided full
funding for the User Request Evaluation Tool (URET).
Aeronautical Data Link (ADL) Applications.--The Committee
has reduced the budget request for Aeronautical Data Link
Applications to $29,700,000 which is $3,500,000 lower than the
budget request. The Aeronautical Data Link program is designed
to provide data link applications between ground and airborne
automation systems. This program is designed to reduce voice
congestion as well as grant pilots direct access to weather and
air traffic control information while reducing voice
communication errors. Recently FAA officials have encountered
technical software development challenges in certifying the en
route controller/pilot data link (CPDLC) system. As such, the
FAA has postponed the deployment of the CPDLC system by roughly
2 years. The funds reduced from the budget request include
$2,000,000 from the CPDLC Build II project; $500,000 from the
Flight Information Service Data Link program; and, $1,000,000
from the CPDLC Decision Support System Services.
Airport surveillance radar (ASR-11).--The Committee has
provided $90,000,000 for the Airport Surveillance Radar (ASR-
11) program. The amount provided is $33,400,000 less than the
budget request. The new ASR-11 radar is expected to provide
digital radar data necessary to interface with new automation
systems, such as the Standard Terminal Automation Replacement
System (STARS). The FAA expects to procure this radar as part
of a larger contract vehicle managed by the United States Air
Force. Due to concerns over delivery delays and the performance
of this radar, the FAA ordered that the ASR-11 vendor provide
its final system for the development, test, and evaluation
phase at the end of calendar year 2001. That date was then
slipped until March of 2002. The FAA and the Air Force have
been conducting such testing individually. It appears that
certain problems with the radar's performance may persist,
including the appearance of false targets on the radar screen
in numbers that exceed the agency's specification. The FAA,
like the Air Force, is now bringing the radar into operational
testing to determine whether these and other problems can be
resolved in the operational environment. The Committee will
monitor the progress of this program carefully. Given the
testing delays already encountered and the uncertainty that
surrounds the next round of testing, the Committee has reduced
funding for the program below the requested level.
Radar at Gallatin Airport.--The Committee is concerned
about potential safety risks associated with the lack of radar
coverage at Gallatin Airport, Montana, an airport whose
enplanements and operations are growing. The Committee directs
the administrator to conduct a site survey for the installation
of the appropriate radar at the airport.
Precision runway monitor (PRM).--The Committee has provided
a total of $18,000,000 for the procurement of three precision
runway monitors (PRMs). This rapid update special purpose radar
system enables aircraft to approach the airport in dual arrival
streams with shorter separation distances and in deteriorating
weather conditions. The vendor of this technology has offered
to extend the existing price of PRM units, making it possible
for the FAA to achieve substantial savings for the taxpayer
through a three-unit purchase. The Committee expects the FAA to
initiate a procurement of three systems, with the expectation
that systems will be installed at Hartsfield International
Airport, Detroit Metropolitan-Wayne County Airport, and one
other site to be determined. Within the amount provided,
sufficient funds are made available for the installation of a
PRM already under contract at Cleveland Hopkins International
Airport. The Committee believes that this installation will
better ensure that the full capacity benefits of new runway 6L/
24R will be realized.
Terminal Air Traffic Control Facilities--Replace.--The
Committee recommendation provides $103,566,000 for this
program. The recommendation provides funding for the following
projects:
Fiscal Year 2003 Terminal Air Traffic
Pago Pago, American Samoa............................... $175,000
Baltimore, MD........................................... 2,088,581
Chantilly, VA........................................... 600,000
Deer Valley, AZ......................................... 803,196
Memphis, TN............................................. 1,147,000
Portland, OR (TRACON)................................... 5,500,000
Dallas, TX (Addison).................................... 5,700,000
Reno, NV................................................ 8,349,000
Fort Wayne, IN.......................................... 3,539,000
Newport News, VA........................................ 6,400,000
La Guardia, NY.......................................... 9,460,000
St. Louis, MO (TRACON).................................. 1,500,000
Corpus Christi, TX...................................... 700,000
Beaumont, TX............................................ 1,000,000
Seattle, WA (ATCT)...................................... 550,000
Salina, KS.............................................. 500,000
Newark, NJ.............................................. 3,000,000
Pt. Columbus, OH........................................ 2,100,000
Grand Canyon, AZ........................................ 255,898
Savannah, GA............................................ 919,190
Newburgh, NY............................................ 2,065,000
Richmond, VA............................................ 550,000
Vero Beach, FL.......................................... 878,775
Everett, WA............................................. 925,000
Roanoke, VA............................................. 550,000
Merrimack, NH (BCT)..................................... 4,700,000
Seattle, WA (TRACON).................................... 4,782,701
Phoenix, AZ............................................. 14,107,919
Manchester, NH.......................................... 943,609
Wilkes Barre, PA........................................ 2,000,000
Topeka, KS.............................................. 1,690,131
Billings, MT............................................ 2,120,000
Missoula, MT............................................ 2,000,000
Provo, UT............................................... 666,000
Albuquerque, NM......................................... 1,800,000
Columbus, MS............................................ 1,500,000
Las Vegas, NV........................................... 3,000,000
Columbia, SC............................................ 1,000,000
Reno, NV (TRACON)....................................... 4,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................... 103,566,000
Oakland Tower Replacement.--The Committee has reduced the
request for Terminal Air Traffic Control Facilities Replacement
by $19,000,000. This reduction is attributable to the deletion
of funding for the replacement of the air traffic control tower
at Oakland, California. Based on the FAA's newly updated
contracting schedule, the agency will not be able to contract
for this tower within fiscal year 2003.
Notams Graphics.--The Committee directs the FAA to expand
the use of graphics to not only flight service stations by also
to provide pilots with advisory graphics of information
contained in the NOTAMs including temporary flight
restrictions. It is important that graphics on Special Use
Airspace also be made available, and the Committee believes
that advisory graphics can be conveyed through the Direct User
Access Terminal System and other sources, including the
internet.
INCREASE CAPACITY OF THE NAS
Navigation and landing aids.--The Committee provides a
total of $307,735,000 to modernize the FAA's navigation and
landing aids systems which is $57,935,000 more than the
President's budget request. Within the funds provided, the
Committee includes $1,500,000 for navigation aids and equipment
at the Nikolski Airport; $4,000,000 for navigation and landing
improvements at the Cincinnati Northern Kentucky International
Airport; $4,000,000 for navigation and landing improvements for
Lambert-St. Louis International Airport; and, $800,000 for
remote transmitter receivers at Las Vegas-McCarran
International Airport.
Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS).--The Committee
continues to be concerned about the diminishing return on
investment expected from the deployment of the Wide Area
Augmentation System as well as the accuracy of the FAA's budget
for this program during consideration of the fiscal year 2002
Appropriations bill. The administrator submitted a special
request for funding to obtain a third geo-stationary satellite
to support the WAAS signal. The Committee funded this special
request but the FAA has now informed the Committee that the
initiative, as so many others within the WAAS program, will be
delayed. The FAA has now decided to execute a competitive
contract for this satellite communications service. This has
resulted in a diminished requirement for funds in fiscal year
2003. As a result, the Committee has lowered funding for the
WAAS program to $98,900,000, a reduction of $11,600,000 from
the budget request.
Loran-C Upgrade/Modernization.--Within the funds provided
for navigation and landing aids, the Committee includes
$21,000,000 for Loran-C upgrades and modernizations.
Instrument Landing System (ILS)--Establish/upgrade.--The
Committee recommendation provides $36,180,000 and directs the
increase above the budget request to be distributed as follows:
Mena Intermountain Municipal Airport, AR................ $580,000.00
Winder-Barrow Airport, GA............................... 4,000,000.00
Olive Branch Airport, MS................................ 600,000.00
Reno-Stead Airport, NV.................................. 1,500,000.00
Pangborn Memorial Airport, WA........................... 1,500,000.00
Wasilla Airport, AK..................................... 1,000,000.00
Stuttgart Municipal Airport, AR......................... 2,000,000.00
Talladega Municipal Airport, AL......................... 1,500,000.00
Transponder Landing System (TLS).--The Committee
recommendation provides $12,000,000 an increase of $6,000,000
over the fiscal year 2002 appropriated level to acquire and
site TLS units. The Committee directs the FAA to conduct
surveys and cost benefit analysis for TLS deployments with the
appropriated funding at the following locations:
Driggs-Reed Memorial and Sandpoint, ID.................. $4,000,000.00
William H. Morse Airport, Bennington VT................. 2,000,000.00
Elko and Minden-Tahoe Airports, NV...................... 4,000,000.00
La Grand/Union County Airport, OR....................... 2,000,000.00
Approach Lighting System Improvement (ALSIP).--The
Committee recommendation provides $29,755,000 for the
procurement and deployment of runway lighting system to
facilitate improved and precision landing capabilities at
various airports. The Committee directs funding to be allocated
to the airports listed below as follows:
Auburn-Opelika R.G. Pitts Airport, AL (MALSR)........... $1,500,000.00
Reno/Tahoe International Airport, NV (MALSR)............ 2,400,000.00
Baton Rouge Municipal Airport, LA (MALSR)............... 750,000.00
Cleveland Hopkins Int'l, Runway 24L (MALSR)............. 400,000.00
Alaska statewide rural airport lighting................. 11,000,000.00
North Little Rock Municipal, AR (MALSR)................. 450,000.00
In addition, the Committee provides $6,000,000 to reduce
the backlog of MALSR systems that are awaiting installation and
$4,000,000 to procure additional systems.
Advanced technology and oceanic procedures.--The Committee
has been supportive of the need to improve the capability of
air traffic services over the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and
has been concerned about delays and difficulties the FAA has
experienced in the past with the Advanced Technologies and
Oceanic Procedures (ATOP) procurement. Although considered a
non-developmental acquisition, it was determined after the
contract was awarded in June, 2001, that the amount of
essential software to be developed and tested was severely
underestimated. Due to the additional complexity, delays in
software development continue to plague the procurement, and
the factory-level acceptance testing which was scheduled to be
completed in September, 2002, is slipping. The Committee urges
the FAA to aggressively manage this procurement and deletes
$11,051,000 in anticipation of the cascading effect software
development problems will have on the delivery of the first
system.
IMPROVE RELIABILITY OF THE NAS
Airport cable loop systems.--The Committee recommendation
provides $5,500,000 to continue FAA's efforts to upgrade and
replace deteriorated cable of the surveillance and landing
communications systems within the National Airspace System.
Within the request provided is $1,500,000 for a fiber optic
loop around Las Vegas-McCarran International Airport.
Flight service station switch modernization.--The Committee
has included $13,200,000 for the flight service station switch
modernization program as requested in the budget request. This
modernization program will replace 65 voice switching systems
at Automated Flight Service Stations and provide eight small
tower voice switches for the non-automated Flight Service
Stations in the Alaskan region. The Committee believes it would
be prudent for the FAA to deploy the switches consistent with
its OASIS implementation plan. At the same time, the Committee
cautions FAA not to use this direction as a reason to delay the
implementation of the OASIS system.
Terminal Voice Switch Replacement (TVSR)/Enhanced Terminal
Voice Switch (ETVS).--The Committee provides $17,200,000 for
the Terminal Voice Switch Replacement (TVSR) program. This
modernization program is designed to replace 421 electro-
mechanical and non-supportable electronic voice pitching
systems. The amount provide over the budget request will be
used for the following activities: $3,000,000 will be used for
additional conferencing capability to improve interagency
coordination during periods of security vulnerabilities which
was identified by the FAA after the events of September 11th,
2001; and, $8,000,000 will be used to increase substantially
the number of ETVS/RDVS units procured in 2003.
Alaska NAS Interfacility Comm System (ANICS).--The
Committee recommendation includes $4,000,000. This is
$1,100,000 more than the requested level of funding and is the
same level appropriated in fiscal year 2002. With this amount,
sufficient funding has been provided to begin installation at a
second Phase II site this year.
Initial Academy Training System (IANTS).--Within the En
Route Automation Program, the Committee has provided
$16,900,000 over and above the budget request for the Initial
Academy Training System program (IATS). These additional funds
will provide a standardized Display System Replacement (DSR)
training platform at the FAA Academy located in Oklahoma City,
OK. At present, newly hired air traffic controllers train at
the academy on outdated M-1 consoles and do not receive any
training on the standardized Display System Replacement
platform until they arrive at an Air Route Traffic Control
Center (ARTCC). These additional funds will be critical to the
training of what is expected to be an increased number of new
recruits to replace controllers entering retirement.
En Route Automation Program.--The Committee has reduced the
funding requested for the En Route Automation Program by
$12,200,000. This reduction is attributable to a level of
unobligated balances that continue to mount in the En Route
Communications Gateway program. Over a 3 year period between
fiscal year 2000 and 2002, the Committee has appropriated
$104,700,000 for the Eunomia/ECG Program. The FAA has re-scoped
this program, which is designed to replace the Peripheral
Adapter Module Replacement Item (PAMRI) equipment, to meet
other critical needs as determined by the FAA's Air Traffic
Services office. Due to the delays associated with the
rescoping of the ECG program, it is anticipated that the
program will have an unobligated balance of $12,200,000
entering fiscal year 2003. The Committee has adjusted the
fiscal year 2003 budget request to account for this unobligated
balance.
FAA Telecommunications Infrastructure (FTI).--The Committee
has provided $46,600,000 for FAA's Telecommunications
Infrastructure (FTI). The amount provided is the same as the
budget request. The FTI Program is intended to improve
telecommunications services within the FAA's NAS and non-NAS
infrastructures. The current incumbent provider of these
services is WorldCom. Given the recent financial troubles
besetting this company, the Committee is concerned with the
company's ability to continue to provide critical
telecommunications services for the nation's air traffic
control infrastructure. While the FAA has now awarded the new
FTI contract to another vendor, WorldCom recently signed a 5-
year bridge contract to provide for a transition period between
WorldCom and the new provider. The Committee is concerned about
WorldCom's ability to perform all elements of the 5-year bridge
contract. As such, the Committee directs that the administrator
develop a contingency plan for the continuation of
telecommunications services in the event that WorldCom is
incapable of fulfilling its contract obligations. The Committee
expects the administrator to coordinate with the Office of the
Inspector General in the development of this contingency plan.
Air/Ground Communications Infrastructure.--Within the funds
provided for air/ground communications infrastructure, the
Committee has included $3,000,000 to develop and test a
prototype capability to transmit critical flight data from
aircraft to ground station using currently installed data
management and communications equipment.
IMPROVE THE EFFICIENCY OF MISSION SUPPORT
DOD/FAA facilities transfer.--The Committee recommends
$3,200,000, including $2,000,000 for the Lawton/Fort Sill
Regional Airport ARAC (Airport Radar Approach Control).
En route communications and control facilities
improvements.--The Committee provides $1,307,953 for en route
communications and control facilities improvements, which is
$250,000 more than the President's budget. Within the amount
provided, the Committee includes $250,000 for a remote
communications outlet at Keokuk, IA Airport.
Asset Support Chain Management (ASCM).--The Committee has
provided $5,000,000 for the Logistics Support Systems and
Facilities activity. This program will provide a single
integrated planning, inventory, and asset management solution
to improve the FAA's performance, financial, and logistics
information systems. The amount provided is $4,300,000 less
than the budget request. This reduction is attributable to the
slippage in a number of programmed elements.
Transition Engineering Support.--The Committee has provided
$37,000,000 for Transition Engineering Support. This program
supports the NAS Implementation Support Contract (NISC). The
amount provided is $2,000,000 less than the budget request and
the Committee believes that this slight reduction can be easily
accommodated without any significant impact on the agency's
overall NAS modernization effort.
Technical Services Support Contract (TSSC).--The Committee
has provided $44,700,000 for the Technical Services Support
Contract. The amount provided is $2,000,000 less than the level
in the budget request. This adjustment is attributable to
savings adjusted by the FAA resulting from the transition from
a new TSSC contract the reduction is expected to have no impact
on system performance.
Resource Tracking Program (RTP).--The Committee has
provided a total of $2,500,000 for the Resource Tracking
Program. This amount is $1,200,000 less than the budget
request. This reduction will result in the deferral of software
maintenance upgrades. However, this deferral should in no way
undermine the FAA's ability to improve the integrity of its
internal budgeting processes.
Research, Engineering, and Development
(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)
Appropriations, 2002 \1\................................ $195,000,000
Budget estimate, 2003 \2\............................... 124,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 124,000,000
\1\ Does not reflect $50,000,000 of supplemental appropriations pursuant
to Public Law 107-117.
\2\ Excludes CSRS/FEHB accruals.
This appropriation finances research, engineering, and
development programs to improve the national air traffic
control system by increasing its safety, security,
productivity, and capacity. The programs are designed to meet
the expected air traffic demands of the future and to promote
flight safety. The major objectives are to keep the current
system operating safely and efficiently; to protect the
environment; and to modernize the system through improvements
in facilities, equipment, techniques, and procedures in order
to insure that the system will safely and efficiently handle
the volume of aircraft traffic expected to materialize in the
future.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommendation includes $124,000,000, for the
FAA's research, engineering, and development activities.
A table showing the fiscal year 2002 enacted level, the
fiscal year 2003 budget estimate, and the Committee
recommendation follows:
RESEARCH, ENGINEERING AND DEVELOPMENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Committee
Program Name 2002 enacted 2003 estimate recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improve Aviation Safety:
Reduce Commercial Aviation Facilities:
Fire Research and Safety................................ $5,242,000 $6,429,000 $6,429,000
Propulsion and Fuel Systems............................. 5,998,000 3,998,000 4,998,000
Advanced Materials/Structural Safety.................... 1,338,000 1,374,000 1,374,000
Flight Safety/Atmospheric Hazards Research.............. 4,494,000 3,101,000 4,101,000
Aging Aircraft.......................................... 25,600,000 20,974,000 20,974,000
Aircraft Catastrophic Failure Prevention Research....... 2,794,000 1,920,000 1,920,000
Flightdeck/Maint/Sysy Integration Human Factors......... 8,003,000 8,411,000 8,411,000
Reduce General Aviation Fatalities:
Propulsion and Fuel Systems............................. 2,570,000 1,713,000 1,713,000
Advanced Materials/Structural Safety.................... 1,636,000 1,679,000 1,679,000
Flight Safety/Atmospheric Hazards Research.............. 1,926,000 1,329,000 1,329,000
Aging Aircraft.......................................... 6,400,000 5,243,000 5,243,000
Flightdeck/Maint/Sysy Integration Human Factors......... 1,903,000 2,000,000 2,000,000
Aviation System Safety:
Aviation Safety Risk Analysis........................... 5,784,000 6,926,000 6,926,000
ATC/AF Human Factors.................................... 8,500,000 10,317,000 10,317,000
Aeromedical Research.................................... 6,121,000 6,603,000 6,603,000
Weather Research........................................ 13,877,000 19,406,000 19,406,000
Improve Efficiency of Air Traffic Control System: Weather 9,791,000 9,099,000 12,099,000
Research Efficiency........................................
Reduce Environmental Impacts of Aviation: Environment and 22,081,000 7,698,000 2,698,000
Energy.....................................................
Improve Efficiency of Mission:
System Planning and Resource Management..................... 1,200,000 1,459,000 1,459,000
Technical Laboratory Facilities............................. 12,250,000 6,455,000 6,455,000
Strategic Partnership....................................... 400,000 610,000 610,000
System Security Technology:
Explosives and Weapons Detection............................ 32,624,000 .............. ..............
Airport Security Technology Integration..................... 2,084,000 .............. ..............
Aviation Security Human Factors............................. 5,163,000 .............. ..............
Aircraft Hardening.......................................... 4,640,000 .............. ..............
Information System Security................................. 2,581,000 .............. ..............
Accountwide adjustment: CSRS/FEHB accruals...................... .............. -2,744,000 -2,744,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total Appropriation....................................... 195,000,000 124,000,000 124,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMPROVE AVIATION SAFETY
Propulsion and fuel systems.--The Committee recommendation
provides a total of $6,711,000 for propulsion and fuel systems
research to reduce commercial and general aviation fatalities.
Within the funds provided, the Committee includes $1,000,000 to
continue the activities of the specialty metals processing
consortium and $1,000,000 for additional research into the
performance and combustion characteristics of aviation grade
ethanol fuels.
Flight safety/atmospheric hazards research.--The Committee
recommendation includes a total of $5,430,000, including
$3,000,000 for flight safety/atmospheric hazards research to
continue the development of in-flight simulator training for
civilian and commercial pilots at the Roswell Industrial
Center.
Aging aircraft.--The Committee recommendation includes a
total of $26,217,000 for the aging aircraft program to reduce
commercial and general aviation fatalities. The Committee has
provided resources to continue the collaborative efforts
between the FAA and several public and private organizations
including the Center for Aviation Systems Reliability (CASR),
the Airworthiness Assurance Center of Excellence (AACE) and the
Engine Titanium Consortium (ETC). Within the appropriation, the
recommendation includes $3,500,000 for the Center for Aviation
Systems Reliability (CASR); $4,000,000 for Airworthiness
Assurance Center of Excellence (AACE); $3,000,000 for Engine
Titanium Consortium (ETC); $3,000,000 for the Aging Aircraft
Nondestructive Inspection Validation Center (AANC); and,
$2,500,000 for the Center for Aviation Research and Aerospace
Technology (CARAT).
Anomalous flight monitor.--Within the funds provided, the
Committee includes $3,000,000 to develop a pilot project at
Seattle-Tacoma International Airport to create a system that
integrates and leverages the capabilities of mobile software
objects to monitor and understand current air traffic
operations and to sense the ``state'' of an aircraft for
anomalous flight conditions.
Weather research safety.--The Committee recommendation
provides $19,406,000 to continue the FAA's weather research
program that is focused on system safety. Within the funds
provided for weather research, the Committee recommendation
includes $5,000,000 to continue research to identify wake
turbulence by utilizing pulsed laser Doppler radar technology.
IMPROVE THE EFFICIENCY OF AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM
Weather research efficiency.--The Committee includes
$12,099,000 for weather research to improve the efficiency of
the air traffic control system. Within the funds provided, the
Committee includes $5,000,000 for wake turbulence research to
expedite the development of new standards and procedures.
REDUCE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF AVIATION
Environment and energy research.--The Committee provides
$2,698,000 for environment and energy research, a reduction of
$5,000,000 due to budget constraints.
Grants-in-Aid for Airports
(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)
(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)
Appropriations, 2002 \1\................................ $1,800,000,000
Budget estimate, 2003................................... 3,100,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 3,100,000,000
\1\ Does not reflect $175,000,000 of direct supplemental appropriations
pursuant to Public Law 107-117.
Chapter 471 of title 49, U.S.C. authorizes a program of
grants to fund airport planning and development and noise
compatibility planning and projects for public use airports in
all States and territories.
The Committee recommends $3,100,000,000 in liquidating cash
for grants-in-aid for airports. This is consistent with the
Committee's obligation limitation on airport programs for
fiscal year 2002 and for the payment of previous years'
obligations.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
Obligation limitation, 2002............................. $3,300,000,000
Budget estimate, 2003................................... 3,400,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 3,400,000,000
The total program level recommended for fiscal year 2003
for grants-in-aid to airports is $3,400,000,000 and is intended
to be sufficient to continue the important tasks of enhancing
airport and airway safety, ensuring that airport standards can
be met, maintaining existing airport capacity, and developing
additional capacity. The amount provided includes $81,049,000
for administration and airport technology research. Also, the
Administration proposes that the grants-in-aid funds be used to
make up for shortfalls in overflight fee collections to fund
the essential air service program.
The Committee notes that a sizable alternative source of
funding is available to airports in the form of passenger
facility charges [PFC's]. The first PFC charge began for
airlines tickets issued on June 1, 1992. DOT data shows that as
of May 1, 2002, 330 airports have been approved for collection
of PFC's in the amount of $34,000,000,000. During calendar year
2001 airports collected $1,590,000,000 in PFC charges, and
$1,940,000,000 is estimated to be collected in calendar year
2002. Of the airports collecting PFC's, approximately one-fifth
collected about 90 percent of the total, and all of these are
either large or medium hub airports. Prior to the authorized
increase in PFC charges, the DOT estimated that these airports
will collect more than $1,610,000,000 in calendar year 2001,
depending on the number of applications received and approved
and assuming current statutory authority. The first collections
at the new $4.50 PFC level began on April 1, 2001 at 31
airports. Eventually, the funding to airports from the 50
percent nominal increase in authorized passenger facility
charges will result in dramatically increased resources for
airport improvements, expansions, and enhancements.
LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS
The bill includes a limitation on obligations of
$3,400,000,000 for fiscal year 2003. This is the same as the
President's budget request and $100,000,000 over the fiscal
year 2002 enacted level.
A table showing the distribution of these funds compared to
the fiscal year 2002 levels and the President's budget request
follows:
Fiscal year 2003 (Est.)
AIR-21 Appropriations Limitation........................ $3,400,000,000
Airports Operations................................. -64,620,000
Research & Development.............................. -16,429,000
Small Community Program............................. -20,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Available for AIP Grants.......................... 3,298,951,000
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Primary Airports........................................ 1,028,358,014
Cargo (3.0 percent)..................................... 98,968,530
Alaska Supplemental..................................... 21,345,114
States (20.0 percent):
Non-Primary Entitlement............................. 341,887,082
State Apportionment by Formula...................... 317,903,118
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Subtotal.......................................... 659,790,200
Carryover Entitlement................................... 300,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Subtotal Entitlements............................. 2,108,461,858
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Small Airport Fund:
Non Hub Airports.................................... 183,303,989
Non Commercial Service.............................. 91,651,994
Small Hub........................................... 45,825,997
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Subtotal Small Airport Fund....................... 320,781,980
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Subtotal Non Discretionary........................ 2,429,243,838
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Noise (34 percent of Disc).............................. 295,700,436
Reliever (0.66 percent of Disc)......................... 5,740,067
MAP (4 percent of Disc)................................. 34,788,286
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Subtotal Disc Set-asides.......................... 336,228,789
========================================================
____________________________________________________
C/S/S/N................................................. 400,108,780
Remaining Discretionary................................. 133,369,593
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Subtotal Other Discretionary...................... 533,478,373
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Subtotal Discretionary............................ $869,707,162
========================================================
____________________________________________________
GRAND TOTAL....................................... 3,298,951,000
AIRPORT DISCRETIONARY GRANTS
Within the overall obligation limitation in this bill, over
$869,000,000 is available for discretionary grants to airports.
The Committee has carefully considered a broad array of
discretionary grant requests that can be expected in fiscal
year 2003. Specifically, the Committee expects the FAA to give
priority consideration to applications for the projects listed
below in the categories of the AIP for which they are eligible.
If funds in the remaining discretionary category are used for
any projects in fiscal year 2003 that are not listed below, the
Committee expects that they will be for projects for which FAA
has issued letters of intent (including letters of intent the
Committee recommends below that the FAA subsequently issues),
or for projects that will produce significant aviation safety
improvements or significant improvements in systemwide capacity
or otherwise have a very high benefit/cost ratio.
Within the program levels recommended, the Committee
directs that priority be given to applications involving the
further development of the following airports:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Airport Project
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abilene Airport, TX............................. Various Improvements
Akutan Airport, AK.............................. Various Improvements
Allen Army Airbase, AK.......................... Various Improvements & Maintenance
Anchorage Int'l Airport, AK..................... Various Improvements
Andalusia Opp, AL............................... Runway/Taxiway Overlay
Andrews-Murphy Airport, NC...................... Various Improvements
Ankeny Regional Airport, IA..................... Hangar, Taxiway, Apron
Artesia Municipal Airport, NM................... Various Improvements
Atka Airport, AK................................ Various Improvements
Atmore Municipal Airport, AL.................... Improvements in Safety Zones
Austin Straubel Field, WI....................... Various Improvements
Autauga County Airport, AL...................... Overlay, Widen Existing Runway
Baltimore-Washington Int'l Airport, MD.......... Various Improvements
Barbour County Regional, WV..................... Various Improvements
Barkley Regional Airport, KY.................... Runway Extension, Various Improvements
Barter Island Dew Airport (Kaktovik), AK........ Various Improvements
Bartlesville Municipal Airport, OK.............. Runway, Safety Area
Batesville Regional Airport, AR................. Various Improvements
Baxter County Regional Airport, AR.............. Runway
Benedum Airport, WV............................. Various Improvements
Bert Mooney Airport, MT......................... Various Improvements
Billings Airport, MT............................ Terminal & Security
Birmingham International Airport, AL............ Various Improvements
Bismark Municipal Airport, ND................... Terminal Replacement
Blackwell Field Airport, AL..................... Land Acquisition for Runway Extension
Bob Wiley Field Airport, SD..................... Various Improvements
Bowling Green/Warren Regional, KY............... Facility
Bowman Field Airport, KY........................ Various Improvements
Braxton County Airport, WV...................... Various Improvements
Bremerton Airport, WA........................... Various Improvements
Bruce Campbell Field Airport, MS................ Land Acq., Taxiway
Buffalo Int'l Airport, NY....................... Runway,Taxiway Ext./Rehab.
Burlington-Alamance Airport, NC................. Various Improvements
Bush Field Airport, GA.......................... New Terminal, Access & Parking
Carl P. Savage Airport, GA...................... Runway Extension & Widening
Cartersville/Bartow Airport, GA................. Various Improvements
Central Illinois Regional.Bloomington-Normal, IL Airport Improvement Projects
Central Nebraska Regional Airport, NE........... Taxiway & Runway
Central Wisconsin Airport, WI................... Runway, Taxiway
Centre Municipal Airport, AL.................... Land Acquisition & Runway Ext.
Chan Gurney Airport, SD......................... Runway Lighting System
Charlottsville-Albermarle Airport, VA........... Various Improvements
Cherokee County Airport, GA..................... Runway Ext., Taxiway & Hangar
Cherry Capital Airport, MI...................... Terminal Construction
Cheyene Airport, WY............................. Runway Safety Area & Taxiway
Cheyenne Airport, CO............................ Runway Safety & Taxiway
Cheyenne Eagle Butte, SD........................ Reservation Hangar
Chippewa County Int'l Airport, MI............... Passenger Terminal
Cincinnati Northern Kentucky Regional, KY....... Feasibility Study
Clarion County Airport, PA...................... Runway Expansion
Clark County Airport, IN........................ Lengthen Runway
Cleveland-Hopkins Int'l Airport, OH............. Noise Mitigation
Clinton Airport, IA............................. Runway, Taxiway Paving
Concord Regional Airport,NC..................... Runway Ext., Land Acquisition
Connellsville Airport, PA....................... Runway Extension
Council Bluffs Airport, IA...................... Land Acquisition, Runway
Craig Field Airport, AL......................... Runway Improvements
Cumberland Regional Airport, MD................. Various Improvements
Dane County Regional Airport, WI................ Runway Construction
Davenport Municipal Airport, IA................. New Terminal Building
Davis City Airport, WV.......................... Various Improvements
Denton Municipal Airport, TX.................... Improvements
Denver International Airport, CO................ Runway
Detroit Metro Wayne County Airport, MI.......... Terminal, Runway Rehabilitation
Dona Ana County Airport, NM..................... Runway and Taxiway
Drake Field, AR................................. Various Improvements
Eagle County Airport, CO........................ Radar Improvements
Eastern Iowa Regional Airport, IA............... Taxiway, Aprons
Eastern West Virginia, WV....................... Various Improvements
Easterwood Airport, TX.......................... Various Improvements
Elkins-Randolph Field, WV....................... Various Improvements
Emmett County Regional Airport, MI.............. Passenger Terminal
Erie International, PA.......................... Runway Extension
Essex County Airport, NJ........................ Various Improvements
Fairfield County Airport, SC.................... Runway Extension
Fairfield Municipal Airport, IA................. Runway & Taxiway
Fairhope Municipal Airport, AL.................. New Runway
Fairmont Municipal Airport, WV.................. Various Improvements
False Pass Airport, AK.......................... Various Improvements
Fayette Airport, WV............................. Various Improvements
Ford Airport, MI................................ Runway Reconstruction
Freeport Albertus Airport, IL................... Airport Improvement Projects
Fort Lauderdale Airport, FL..................... Automated People Mover Study
General Mitchell International Airport , WI..... Taxiway Extension
Georgetown Air Services Airport, DE............. Security Improvements
Glacier Park Int'l Airport, MT.................. Infrastructure Projects
Glynco Jetport, GA.............................. Terminal, Renovation
Golden Triangle Regional Airport, MS............ Various Improvement
Grand Forks Int'l Airport, ND................... Runway & Parallel Taxiway
Grant County Airport, WV........................ Various Improvements
Great Falls International Airport, MT........... Category III Upgrades
Greater Rochester Int'l Airport, NY............. Various Improvements
Greater Rockford Airport, IL.................... Airport Improvement Projects
Greenbriar Valley Airport, WV................... Various Improvements
Gulfport-Biloxi Airport, MS..................... Terminal Expansion & Security
Harrell Field Airport, AR....................... Various Improvements
Harrisburg International Airport, PA............ Multimodal Terminal
Headland Municipal Airport, AL.................. Land Acquisition, Runway, & Taxiway
Helena Regional Airport, MT..................... Facility Modernization
Henry E. Rohlsen Airport, St. Croix............. Runway Extension
Herrell Field Airport, AR....................... Repair Facility Camden
Highmore Municipal Airport, SD.................. Runway
Holly Springs-Marshall County Airport, MS....... Runway Extension
Houston Municipal Airport, MS................... Improvements
Houston Municipal Airport, TX................... AIP Priority Language
Indiana City-Jimmy Stewart Airport, PA.......... Runway Extension
Jackson County Airport, WV...................... Various Improvements
Jackson Int'l Airport, MS....................... Terminal Renovations
Jackson Municipal Airport, AL................... Improvement Project
Johnstown-Cambria County Airport, PA............ Distribution Center
Jonesboro Municipal Airport, AR................. Runway Expansion & terminal
Joplin Regional Airport, MO..................... Terminal Improvements
Juneau Harbor Int'l Airport, AK................. Various Improvements
Kansas City Downtown Airport, MO................ Runway & Terminal Improvements
Kee Field Airport, WV........................... Various Improvements
Kennett Memorial Airport, MO.................... Runway Improvements
Ketchikan Int'l Airport, AK..................... Various Improvements
Key Field Airport, MS........................... New Terminal Building
Kodiak Airport, AK.............................. Various Improvements
LaCrosse Municipal Airport, WI.................. Parallel Taxiway
Lafayette Airport, LA........................... Runway, Taxiway
Lambert Airport, MO............................. Parks & Runway Project
Lawrence County Airport, PA..................... Various Improvements
Lehigh Valley International Airport, PA......... Lighting
Lewis County Airport, MO........................ Hangar Projects
Lewis University Airport, IL.................... Runway & Hangar
Livingston County Airport, MI................... Runway Construction
Logan County Airport, WV........................ Various Improvements
Louisville Int'l Airport, KY.................... Integrated Advanced Technology, Noise
Madison Airport, MS............................. Land Acquisition, Taxiway
Madison County Airport, AL...................... Various Improvements
Manistee County Blacker Airport, MI............. Terminal Building
Marion-Crittenden County Airport, KY............ Expansion
Marks Airport, MS............................... Runway Extension
Marlinton City Airport, WV...................... Various Improvements
Marshall City Airport,WV........................ Various Improvements
Mason City Airport, IA.......................... Runway
Mason County Airport, WV........................ Various Improvements
McAlester Airport, OK........................... Runway & Various Improvements
McComb-Pike County Airport, MS.................. Various Improvements
McKinney Municipal Airport, TX.................. Taxiway
Memorial Field Airport, AR...................... Terminal Hangars
Mercer City Airport, WV......................... Various Improvements
Meridian Key Field Airport, MS.................. Construction
Miami International Airport, FL................. Apron Construction Project
Mingo County Airport, WV........................ Various Improvements
Minneapolis-St. Paul Int'l Airport, MN.......... De-icing/holding pad
Missoula Int'l Airport, MT...................... Master Plan, Runway, Land
Monroe Municipal Airport, NC.................... Security Improvements
Monroe Regional Airport, LA..................... Terminal
Montgomery Regional (Dannelly Field) Airport, AL Terminal Improvements
Morganton-Lenoir Airport, NC.................... Terminal & Parking
Morgantown Muni-walter, WV...................... Various Improvements
Nashville Int'l Airport, TN..................... Security Enhancement
New Castle County Airport, DE................... Digital Video Recording System
New Orleans Airport, LA......................... Various Improvements
Newport News-Williamsburg Int'l, VA............. Baggage Claim Facility
Newton Airport, IA.............................. Taxiway
Niagara Falls Int'l Airport, NY................. Hangar Demolition
Northwest Arkansas Regional, AR................. Airport Expansion
Oakland Pontiac County Airport, MI.............. Noise Mitigation Program
Ogden Hinckley Airport, UT...................... Runway Extension
Orlando Int'l Airport, FL....................... Wildlife Attractants Project
Orlando Sanford International Airport, FL....... Runway
Ottumwa Industrial Airport, IA.................. Taxiway
Palmer Municipal Airport, AK.................... Various Improvements
Petersburg Airport, AK.......................... Runway Apron & Various Improvements
Philadelphia International Airport, PA.......... Capital Improvements
Philadelphia Municipal Airport, MS.............. Airfield Expansion
Pierre Regional Airport, SD..................... Runway & Lighting System
Pilot Point, AK................................. Airport Expansion
Pittsburgh International Airport, PA............ Runway & Security
Port Columbus Int'l Airport, OH................. Airport Improvements
Port Heiden Airport, AK......................... Airport Expansion
Princeton/Caldwell County Airport, KY........... Runway Extension
Pryor Field Regional, AL........................ Various Improvements
Quad City Airport/Moline, IL.................... Airport Improvement Projects
Raleigh City Memorial, WV....................... Various Improvements
Ralph Wein Memorial Airport (Kotzebue) AK....... Various Improvements
Ralph Wien Memorial, AK......................... Passenger Terminal, Road Relocation
Reagan National Airport, VA..................... Various Improvements
Reno Stead Airport, NV.......................... Runway and Taxiway
Reno/Tahoe Int'l Airport, NV.................... Taxiway, Runway
Richard B. Russel Airport, GA................... Runway Extension & Security
Ripley County Airport, MS....................... Runway Extension
Roberts Field Airport, OR....................... Terminal, Expansion
Rock County Airport,WI.......................... Runway
Rockingham-Hamlet County Airport, NC............ Expansion
Romeo State Airport, MI......................... Runway Improvements
Roswell Airport, NM............................. Maintenance Facility Expansion
Russellville Municipal Airport, AL.............. Runway Extension
Rutland State Airport, VT....................... Public Taxiway
Ryan Field Baton Rouge Airport, LA.............. Various Improvements, Language
Saline County, AR............................... Relocation
Shreveport Regional Airport, LA................. Runway, Noise, Cargo
Southcenteral, AK............................... Float Plane Facility
Spencer City Airport, WV........................ Various Improvements
Spokane Int'l Airport, WA....................... Taxiway
Springfield Capital Airport, IL................. Airport Improvement Projects
Springfield/Branson Mid-field, MO............... Terminal Project
St. George, UT.................................. Replacement Airport Land Acquisition
St. Louis Lambert, MO........................... Expansion & Noise Mitigation
St. Paul & St. George, Pribilof Island, AK...... Runway Improvements
Stanly County Airport, NC....................... Various Improvements
Statesville Airport, NC......................... Various Improvements
Stennis Int'l Airport, MS....................... Expansion
Stockton Metro Airport,CA....................... Upgrades
Summersville Airport, WV........................ Various Improvements
The Eastern Iowa Airport, IA.................... Taxiway, Apron
Toledo Express Airport, OH...................... Remediation & Land Development
Tom B David Field Airport, GA................... Security & Infrastructure
Tri-State/Walker-Long Field, WV................. Various Improvements
Tulsa International Airport, OK................. Security Improvements
Tunica County Airport, MS....................... Construct Main Aircraft Parking Apron
Unalaska Airport, AK............................ Various Improvements
Upshur County Regional Airport, WV.............. Various Improvements
Vermillion Airport, IL.......................... Various Improvements
Walnut Ridge Regional Airport, AR............... Runway Extension
Washington Memorial Airport, MO................. Runway Project
Waynesboro Municipal Airport, MS................ Extension and Runway Widening
Weedon Field Airport, AL........................ Construct Parallel Taxiway
Welch Municipal Airport, WV..................... Various Improvements
Wendell H. Ford Airport, KY..................... Various Improvements
Wheeling-Ohio Airport, WV....................... Various Improvements
Wilmington International, NC.................... Various Improvements
Winfield City Airport, WV....................... Various Improvements
Winona-Montgomery County Airport, MS............ Various Improvements
Wood City/Gill Robb Wilson Field, WV............ Various Improvements
Yeager Airport, WV.............................. Various Improvements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LETTERS OF INTENT
Congress authorized FAA to use letters of intent [LOI's] to
fund multiyear airport improvement projects that will
significantly enhance systemwide airport capacity. FAA is also
to consider a project's benefits and costs in determining
whether to approve it for AIP funding. FAA adopted a policy of
committing to LOI's no more than about 50 percent of forecasted
discretionary funds allocated for capacity, safety, security,
and noise projects. The Committee viewed this policy as
reasonable because it gave FAA the flexibility to fund other
worthy projects that do not fall under a LOI. Both FAA and
airport authorities have found letters of intent helpful in
planning and funding airport development.
ADMINISTRATION
The bill provides that, within the overall obligation
limitation, $81,049,000 is available for administration of the
airports program by the FAA and airport technology research.
The Committee recommendation includes $16,429,000 for
Airport Technology Research. The program is included in AIP for
fiscal year 2003 as the research directly supports improvements
in airport safety, capacity, and efficiency. The research is
directed at mitigation of wildlife strike hazards to aircraft,
improvement of airport rescue and firefighting, improvement of
airport lighting and marking, reduction in runway incursions,
and improvement in airport pavement and design. It also
includes funding for the 18 FTE in the Airport Technology
Branch at the William J. Hughes Technical Center and continued
operation of the pavement test facility at the Technical
Center.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Second career training program.--The Committee has included
bill language which was included in the President's budget
request which prohibits the use of appropriated funds for the
second career training program. This prohibition has been
carried in annual appropriations acts for many years.
Sunday premium pay.--The bill retains a provision, first
included in the fiscal year 1995 appropriations bill, which
prohibits FAA from paying Sunday premium pay, except in those
cases where the individual actually worked on a Sunday. This
provision is identical to that which was in effect for fiscal
years 1995-2002. It was requested by the administration for
fiscal year 2003.
Manned auxiliary flight service stations.--The Committee
has retained bill language which was requested by the
administration to prohibit the use of funds for operating a
manned auxiliary flight service station in the contiguous
United States. There is no funding provided in the
``Operations'' account for such stations in fiscal year 2003.
Facilitating Environmental Reviews to Increase Airport
Capacity.--The bill authorizes the Federal Aviation
Administration (sec. 338) to use funds from airport sponsors,
including the airport's ``Grants-in-Aid for Airports''
entitlement funds, for the hiring of additional staff or for
obtaining services of consultants for the purpose of
facilitating environmental activities related to airport
projects that add critical airport capacity to the national air
transportation system.
FAA and TSA Facilities on Airport Property.--The bill
includes a provision (sec. 335) that prohibits funds in this
Act to be used to adopt guidelines or regulations requiring
airport sponsors to provide the Federal Aviation Administration
or the Transportation Security Administration ``without cost''
buildings, maintenance, or space for FAA services. The
prohibition does not apply to negotiations between FAA and
airport sponsors concerning ``below market'' rates for such
services or to grant assurances that require airport sponsors
to provide land without cost to the FAA for air traffic control
facilities. The prohibition also does not apply to the TSA's
use of space for security checkpoints.
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
Summary of Fiscal Year 2003 Program
The principal mission of the Federal Highway Administration
is to, in partnership with State and local governments, foster
the development of a safe, efficient, and effective highway and
intermodal system nationwide including access to and within
National Forests, National Parks, Indian Lands and other public
lands.
Under the Committee recommendations, a total program level
of $32,892,767,000 would be provided for the activities of the
Federal Highway Administration in fiscal year 2003. The
following table summarizes the fiscal year 2002 program levels,
the fiscal year 2003 program request and the Committee's
recommendations:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-------------------------------- Committee
Program 2002 program 2003 budget recommendation
level estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal-aid highways limitation \1\............................. 31,799,104 23,204,787 31,800,000
Limitation on administrative expenses \1\................... (311,000) (317,732) (317,732)
Exempt Federal-aid obligations.................................. 965,308 892,767 892,767
Appalachian Development Highway System.......................... 200,000 .............. 200,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 32,964,412 24,097,554 32,892,767
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not reflect TASC reduction of $841,000 in section 349 of Public Law 107-87 as amended by sec. 1106,
Public Law 107-117.
Limitation on Administrative Expenses
Appropriations, 2002 \1\................................ $311,000,000
Budget estimate, 2003 \2\............................... 317,732,000
Committee recommendation \2\............................ 317,732,000
\1\ Does not reflect TASC reduction of $841,000 in section 349 of Public
Law 107-87 as amended by sec. 1106, Public Law 107-117.
\2\ Funding for motor carrier administration expenses is included as a
separate limitation in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.
The limitation on administrative expenses controls spending
for virtually all the salaries and expenses of the Federal
Highway Administration. The Transportation Equity Act for the
21st Century changed the funding source for the highway
research accounts from the administrative takedown of the
Federal-Aid Highway Program to individual contract authority
provisions. The Committee recommends a limitation of
$317,732,000. Within the funds provided, the Committee includes
$1,261,000 for the Office of Intermodalism.
The following table reflects the fiscal year 2002 level,
the 2003 level requested by the administration, and the
Committee's recommendation:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
Program 2003 budget recommendation
2002 level estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative expenses:
Salaries and benefits.................................... 222,936 231,857 231,857
Travel................................................... 9,473 9,473 9,473
Transportation........................................... 465 465 465
GSA rent................................................. 20,621 24,646 24,646
Communications, rent, and utilities...................... 9,607 9,607 9,607
Printing................................................. 1,412 1,412 1,412
TASC..................................................... 7,025 6,184 6,184
Supplies................................................. 2,000 2,000 2,000
Equipment................................................ 4,536 4,536 4,536
Other (including Office of Intermodalism)................ 32,925 27,552 27,552
--------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................. \1\ 311,000 317,732 317,732
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not reflect TASC reduction of $841,000 in section 349 of Public Law 107-87 as amended by section 1106,
Public Law 107-117.
The Committee recommends the following items be funded
under section 104(a)(1)(A): $106,967,000 for the border
enforcement program within the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration. Within that amount, $47,000,000 shall be
available for the construction of border inspection facilities
along the U.S./Mexico border. The administration's budget
proposed that this $47,000,000 expenditure be funded as a
statutory earmark within the National Corridor Planning and
Development Program.
Child passenger protection education grants.--The Committee
recommendation includes $7,500,000 to continue providing
grants, as authorized under section 2003(b) of TEA21, that
train safety professionals on all aspects of proper child
restraint use and educate the public on the installation,
selection, and placement of child safety seats.
Federal-Aid Highways
(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)
(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)
Limitation, 2002 \1\
$31,799,104,000
Budget estimate, 2003
23,204,787,000
Committee recommendation
31,800,000,000
\1\ Does not reflect 0.22 percent reduction in section 1403 of Public
Law 106-554.
The accompanying bill includes language limiting fiscal
year 2003 Federal-aid highways obligations to $31,800,000,000
an increase of $896,000 over the fiscal year 2002 enacted level
and $8,595,213,000 over the budget request.
The following table shows the distribution of highway funds
apportioned to the States under four scenarios: the fiscal year
2002 enacted level, the President's budget, the level
authorized in TEA21 without any negative adjustment associated
with the Revenue Aligned Budget Authority Program, and the
Committee recommendation.
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION ESTIMATED FISCAL YEAR 2003 DISTRIBUTION OF OBLIGATION LIMITATION
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actual fiscal Fiscal year 2003 Fiscal year 2003 Fiscal year 2003
States year 2002 President's TEA21 (No RABA) Committee
distribution \1\ budget \1\ \1\ recommendation \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama............................... $561,362,701 $415,438,659 $497,809,309 $572,658,214
Alaska................................ 314,793,656 243,992,539 282,049,558 317,551,112
Arizona............................... 486,222,525 360,625,443 428,178,058 491,481,051
Arkansas.............................. 362,646,673 271,870,783 325,162,357 371,757,917
California............................ 2,516,921,592 1,873,897,524 2,251,986,391 2,605,145,070
Colorado.............................. 353,162,510 262,226,522 315,313,485 364,328,955
Connecticut........................... 408,915,843 309,661,533 366,787,459 420,695,641
Delaware.............................. 119,922,108 89,903,183 107,786,314 124,522,828
District of Columbia.................. 110,272,767 80,228,034 97,670,902 114,203,615
Florida............................... 1,288,949,611 962,397,636 1,138,108,292 1,303,298,956
Georgia............................... 988,683,758 736,644,102 874,372,963 1,004,343,983
Hawaii................................ 142,269,483 105,377,242 126,117,171 145,782,286
Idaho................................. 211,274,214 158,107,857 188,164,413 215,883,889
Illinois.............................. 933,052,868 687,635,445 828,349,186 962,103,966
Indiana............................... 637,416,428 480,626,303 571,752,610 657,942,217
Iowa.................................. 329,539,179 244,147,409 295,194,209 343,615,244
Kansas................................ 324,853,609 237,945,876 288,082,372 335,681,036
Kentucky.............................. 483,773,648 357,260,223 428,654,998 496,043,266
Louisiana............................. 433,572,935 326,043,519 391,892,073 454,479,647
Maine................................. 147,086,603 108,424,690 130,260,610 148,907,537
Maryland.............................. 444,585,693 334,786,649 402,215,120 465,946,381
Massachusetts......................... 514,199,794 382,618,573 460,170,290 528,895,677
Michigan.............................. 894,928,134 664,400,228 792,891,230 914,522,416
Minnesota............................. 408,442,237 304,948,964 367,024,766 426,121,388
Mississippi........................... 355,303,061 264,919,392 317,912,106 368,074,860
Missouri.............................. 646,921,711 481,643,989 579,580,765 670,611,287
Montana............................... 266,186,472 202,334,294 239,147,070 273,465,583
Nebraska.............................. 215,987,903 157,601,762 190,753,358 221,920,788
Nevada................................ 197,993,516 147,568,451 175,748,970 202,310,700
New Hampshire......................... 140,214,707 105,843,997 126,691,084 145,549,494
New Jersey............................ 724,629,766 534,247,633 643,336,952 747,051,638
New Mexico............................ 268,590,255 201,195,690 240,387,850 277,424,892
New York.............................. 1,401,040,155 1,050,848,025 1,260,822,015 1,460,333,241
North Carolina........................ 773,663,974 576,896,840 686,915,153 790,739,256
North Dakota.......................... 179,364,219 133,140,857 159,945,661 185,093,263
Ohio.................................. 961,276,478 715,885,800 858,861,756 994,232,940
Oklahoma.............................. 428,332,860 313,870,027 379,144,803 439,882,856
Oregon................................ 337,795,085 252,007,794 303,669,209 346,942,106
Pennsylvania.......................... 1,391,590,528 1,031,424,560 1,241,077,672 1,421,075,966
Rhode Island.......................... 164,111,783 121,859,206 145,918,370 167,518,858
South Carolina........................ 461,159,042 345,741,214 411,340,455 469,016,474
South Dakota.......................... 199,167,503 148,832,688 178,370,728 201,619,207
Tennessee............................. 622,352,003 470,475,704 564,021,658 652,460,489
Texas................................. 2,146,241,884 1,593,917,206 1,895,420,532 2,176,247,712
Utah.................................. 216,502,048 159,143,771 192,107,692 223,449,500
Vermont............................... 124,154,439 92,915,343 111,740,964 129,451,017
Virginia.............................. 709,623,612 537,180,528 640,818,719 737,593,183
Washington............................ 493,764,590 363,330,177 438,456,193 509,989,784
West Virginia......................... 308,053,178 231,628,118 278,412,016 322,971,290
Wisconsin............................. 545,543,085 405,758,783 482,676,315 555,299,224
Wyoming............................... 188,996,676 141,882,461 170,844,171 197,057,048
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL........................ 27,885,409,102 20,781,303,246 24,870,116,373 28,673,294,948
=========================================================================
Allocation Programs \2\............... 3,913,694,898 2,423,483,754 2,783,883,627 3,126,705,052
=========================================================================
TOTAL........................... 31,799,104,000 23,204,787,000 27,654,000,000 31,800,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes special limitation for minimum guarantee, Appalachia, and high priority projects and excludes
exempt minimum guarantee and emergency relief.
\2\ Includes territories.
FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS PROGRAMS
The roads and bridges that make up our nation's highway
infrastructure are built, operated, and maintained through the
joint efforts of Federal, State, and local governments. States
have much flexibility to use Federal-aid highway funds to best
meet their individual needs and priorities, with FHWA's
assistance and oversight.
The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21),
the highway, highway safety, and transit authorization through
fiscal year 2003 makes funds available in the following major
categories:
National highway system.--The Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 authorized the
National Highway System (NHS), which was subsequently
established as a 163,000-mile road system by the National
Highway System Designation Act of 1995. This system serves
major population centers, intermodal transportation facilities,
international border crossings, and major destinations. It is
comprised of all interstate routes, selected urban and
principal rural arterials, defense highways, and major highway
connectors carrying up to 76 percent of commercial truck
traffic and 44 percent of all vehicle traffic. A State may
transfer up to half of its NHS funds to the Surface
Transportation program (STP) and all NHS funds with the
concurrence of the Secretary of Transportation. The Federal
share of the NHS is an 80 percent match and funds remain
available for 4 fiscal years.
Interstate maintenance.--The 46,567-mile Dwight D.
Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways
retains a separate identity within the NHS. This program
finances projects to rehabilitate, restore, resurface and
reconstruct the Interstate system. Reconstruction of bridges,
interchanges, and over-crossings along existing interstate
routes is also an eligible activity if it does not add capacity
other than high occupancy vehicle (HOV) and auxiliary lanes.
All remaining Federal funding to complete the initial
construction of the interstate system has been provided through
previous highway legislation. The TEA21 provides flexibility to
States in fully utilizing remaining unobligated balances of
prior Interstate Construction authorizations. States with no
remaining work to complete the Interstate System may transfer
any surplus Interstate Construction funds to their Interstate
Maintenance program. States with remaining completion work on
Interstate gaps or open-to-traffic segments may relinquish
Interstate Construction fund eligibility for the work and
transfer the Federal share of the cost to their Interstate
Maintenance program.
Funds provided for the Interstate maintenance discretionary
program in fiscal year 2003 shall be available for the
following activities in the corresponding amounts:
Project Amount
I-15 Reconstruction, 10800 South to 600 North, UT....... $6,000,000
I-182/SR-240 Interchange Reconstruction, WA............. 3,000,000
I-195 Relocation Project, RI............................ 3,000,000
I-25 Broadway & Alameda Interchange Rebuilding, CO...... 5,000,000
I-29 Madison Street Interchange, Sioux Falls, SD........ 4,000,000
I-295 Via Duct to I-76, NJ.............................. 2,000,000
I-30/I-35 Dallas, Construction of Bridges for Trinity
River, TX........................................... 6,000,000
I-90, Exit 32 Interchange at Sturgis, SD................ 4,000,000
I-35/Turkey Creek, Reconstruction Project, KS........... 3,000,000
I-40 Crosstown Realignment, OK.......................... 6,000,000
I-40 Paseo del Volcan Interchange, Albuquerque, NM...... 2,000,000
I-44 & US 65 Interchange, MO............................ 2,000,000
I-55 Church Rd. to TN State Line, DeSoto County, MS..... 10,000,000
I-55/US-49 Flyover Near Jackson, MS..................... 6,000,000
I-65/70 Market Square Redesign/Replace ramp, IN......... 5,000,000
I-75 Improvements South West Florida, FL................ 2,000,000
I-75/I-475 Systems Interchange Upgrade at North Cove, OH 1,100,000
I-90 Joint Port of Entry Project, WY.................... 2,500,000
Marquette Interchange Reconstruction, WI................ 8,000,000
Port of Garfield Road & Bridge Road, WA................. 500,000
Route 80 Paterson Interchange,NJ........................ 400,000
Sunnyside, South First St. Reconstruction, WA........... 1,500,000
SW First-NW Lake Road Project, WA....................... 3,000,000
Union Gap, Valley Mall Blvd., WA........................ 1,500,000
US-12, Burbank to Walla Walla, WA....................... 2,500,000
US-63/I-70 Interchange Improvements, MO................. 10,000,000
Surface transportation program.--The surface transportation
program (STP) is a very flexible program that may be used by
the states and localities for any roads (including NHS) that
are not functionally classified as local or rural minor
collectors. These roads are collectively referred to as
Federal-aid highways. Bridge projects paid with STP funds are
not restricted to Federal-aid highways but may be on any public
road. Transit capital projects are also eligible under this
program. The total funding for the STP may be augmented by the
transfer of funds from other programs and by minimum guarantee
funds under TEA21 which may be used as if they were STP funds.
Once distributed to the states, STP funds must be used
according to the following percentages: 10 percent for safety
construction; 10 percent for transportation enhancement; 50
percent divided among areas of over 200,000 population and
remaining areas of the State; and, 30 percent for any area of
the state. Areas of 5,000 population or less are guaranteed an
amount based on previous funding, and 15 percent of the amounts
reserved for these areas may be spent on rural minor
collectors. The Federal share for the STP program is 80 percent
with a 4-year availability period.
Bridge replacement and rehabilitation program.--This
program is continued by the TEA21 to provide assistance for
bridges on public roads, including a discretionary set-aside
for high cost bridges and for the seismic retrofit of bridges.
Fifty percent of a state's bridge funds may be transferred to
the NHS or the STP, but the amount of any such transfer is
deducted from the national bridge needs used in the program's
apportionment formula for the following year.
At least 15 percent, but not more than 35 percent, of a
State's apportioned bridge funds must be spent on bridges not
on the Federal-aid system.
Funds provided for the bridge discretionary program in
fiscal year 2003 shall be available for the following
activities in the corresponding amounts:
Project Amount
Bull Slough Bridge Repair, AL........................... $1,000,000
Canvas Bridge, Nicholas County, WV...................... 6,000,000
Covered Bridges, including $2,000,000 for Vermont....... 10,000,000
Depot Street Bridge restoration, Beacon Falls, CT....... 1,000,000
Golden Gate Bridge Seismic Retrofit, CA................. 6,000,000
Granite Street Bridge, Manchester, NH................... 8,000,000
Historic Woodrow Wilson Bridge, Flowood, MS............. 1,000,000
Hot Metal Bridge, PA.................................... 500,000
I-195 Washington Bridge Replacement, RI................. 8,000,000
Indian River Inlet Bridge Repairs in Sussex, DE......... 5,000,000
Lexington Bridge, Cowlitz-Wahkiakum WA.................. 7,500,000
Market Street Bridge Replacement, Lycoming County, PA... 4,500,000
Missouri River Two State Bridge Project, NE............. 4,000,000
Monroe St. Bridge Rehabilitation, Spokane WA............ 2,500,000
Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge Reconstruction, New Haven,
CT.................................................. 6,000,000
Pomeroy-Mason Bridge, Mason County, WV.................. 6,000,000
Rehabilitation of the Waldo-Hancock Bridge, ME.......... 5,000,000
Russell St. Viaduct Replacement (MD295) Baltimore, MD... 8,000,000
Sauvie Island Bridge, Replacement Project, OR........... 3,000,000
Snake River Crossing EIS, Twin Falls, ID................ 1,000,000
Tate's Bluff, Arkansas Replacement Bridge, AR........... 1,500,000
Wacker Drive Reconstruction, Chicago, IL................ 4,500,000
National Historic Covered Bridge Preservation Program.--The
Committee recommendation provides $10,000,000 for the covered
bridge program within the funds made available for the
discretionary bridge program. Within this amount, $2,000,000
shall be made available for covered bridges in the State of
Vermont.
Congestion mitigation and air quality improvement
program.--This program provides funds to States to improve air
quality in non-attainment and maintenance areas. A wide range
of transportation activities are eligible, as long as DOT,
after consultation with EPA, determines they are likely to help
meet national ambient air quality standards. TEA21 provides
greater flexibility to engage public-private partnerships, and
expands and clarifies eligibilities to include programs to
reduce extreme cold starts, maintenance areas, and particulate
matter (PM-10) nonattainment and maintenance areas. If a State
has no non-attainment or maintenance areas, the funds may be
used as if they were STP funds.
On-road and off-road demonstration projects may be
appropriate candidates for funding under the CMAQ program. Both
sectors are critical for satisfying the purposes of the CMAQ
program, including regional emissions and verifying new mobile
source control techniques.
Federal lands highways.--This program provides
authorizations through three major categories--Indian
reservation roads, parkways and park roads, and public lands
highways (which incorporates the previous forest highways
category)--as well as a new category for Federally-owned public
roads providing access to or within the National Wildlife
Refuge System. TEA21 also establishes a new program for
improving deficient bridges on Indian reservation roads.
The Committee directs that the funds allocated for this
program in this bill and in permanent law are to be derived
from the FHWA's public lands discretionary program, and not
from funds allocated to the National Park Service's regions.
Funds provided for the Federal lands program in fiscal year
2003 shall be available for the following activities:
Project Amount
Arches National Park Main Entrance Relocation, UT....... $1,250,000
BIA Route 13/Route1 Project, Makah, WA.................. 5,400,000
Blackstone River Valley Bikeway, RI..................... 2,000,000
Cattle Point Road, San Juan County, WA.................. 350,000
Colonial Historic Park--Jamestown 400th Anniversary
Transportation Improvements, VA..................... 2,170,000
Council Grove Lake Embankment Roadway, KS............... 1,500,000
Downeast Heritage Center, Parking & Access, ME.......... 400,000
Fort Drum Road Improvements, NY......................... 770,000
Fox Ridge Road Repair, SD............................... 1,300,000
Freemont County Project, WY............................. 1,100,000
Frog Level Road, Neshoba County, MS..................... 1,000,000
Gateway Trail, Grand Canyon National Park, AZ........... 1,380,000
Glacier National Park, Going-to-the-Sun Road, MT........ 5,000,000
Hawaii Statewide Improvements........................... 5,000,000
Highway 93 Expansion Project, MT........................ 1,400,000
Homochitto National Forest Access Rd, Lincoln, MS....... 2,000,000
Hoonah Road (FM), AK.................................... 1,400,000
Hoover Dam Bypass New Bridge downstream of Dam, NV...... 8,500,000
Hoover Dam Bridge Bypass, AZ............................ 2,000,000
Hwy 2 Highline EIS Project, MT.......................... 1,000,000
I-215 Widening, NV...................................... 3,500,000
Iditarod Historic National Trail Project, AK............ 500,000
Kenai River Trail, AK................................... 500,000
Lewis and Clark, Gates of the Mountains Road Project, MT 600,000
Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller Park Pedestrian Walkway, VT.. 380,000
Menominee Indian Tribe road improvements, WI............ 2,000,000
Metlakatla/Walden Point Road, AK........................ 2,000,000
Naknek Lake Camp Road, AK............................... 3,400,000
Patuxent River Naval Air Museum & Visitor Center, MD.... 1,000,000
Preston North/South Richardson County, NE............... 1,000,000
Shotgun Cove Road, AK................................... 2,000,000
Southeast Alaska Seatrails, AK.......................... 750,000
Spirit Lake Tribe Shared Use Path, Fort Totten, ND...... 520,000
SR-149 Resurfacing, Rio Grande National Forest, CO...... 2,000,000
SR-164 Muckleshoots, WA................................. 420,000
SR-323 Paving Project, Ekalaka & Alzada, Fallon County,
MT.................................................. 1,000,000
US 95 Widening Laughlin Cut-off to Railroad Pass, NV.... 10,000,000
USMC Heritage Center Access, VA......................... 2,000,000
Yakama Signal Peak Road, WA............................. 4,150,000
Minimum guarantee.--Under TEA21, after the computation of
funds for major Federal-aid programs, additional funds are
distributed to ensure that each State receives an additional
amount based on equity considerations. This minimum guarantee
provision ensures that each State will have a return of 90.5
percent on its share of contributions to the highway account of
the Highway Trust Fund. To achieve the minimum guarantee each
fiscal year, $2,800,000,000 nationally is available to the
States as though they are STP funds (except that requirements
related to set-asides for transportation enhancements, safety,
and sub-State allocations do not apply), and any remaining
amounts are distributed among core highway programs.
Value pricing program.--As the fiscal year 2003
applications for the value pricing program are being reviewed,
the Committee encourages FHWA to support the data collection
phase of the pay-as-you-drive variable pricing research program
in Atlanta, GA.
Emergency relief.--This program provides for the repair and
reconstruction of Federal-aid highways and Federally-owned
roads which have suffered serious damage as the result of
natural disasters or catastrophic failures. TEA21 restates the
program eligibility specifying that emergency relief (ER) funds
can be used only for emergency repairs to restore essential
highway traffic, to minimize the extent of damage resulting
from a natural disaster or catastrophic failure, or to protect
the remaining facility and make permanent repairs. If ER funds
are exhausted, the Secretary of Transportation may borrow funds
from other highway programs.
High priority projects.--TEA21 includes 1,850 high priority
projects specified by the Congress. Funding for these projects
totals $9,359,850,000 over the 6 year period with a specified
percentage of the project funds made available each year.
Unlike demonstration projects in the past, the funds for TEA21
high priority projects are subject to the Federal-aid
obligation limitation, but the obligation limitation associated
with the projects does not expire.
Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act
(TIFIA).--Programs authorized under the Transportation
Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) provide
credit assistance on flexible terms directly to public-private
sponsors of major surface transportation projects to assist
them in gaining access to the capital markets. The Committee
believes that TIFIA is an important part of the Federal
Government's overall infrastructure investment effort--one that
is likely to grow in importance and size in the future.
Unfortunately, demand for resources under the program has not
kept pace with the contract authority available under TEA21. As
such, the program is expected to carry an unspent balance of
over $100,000,000 into fiscal year 2003. The Committee believes
that the carryover balances will adequately cover the likely
demand for projects in 2003. As such, the Committee has used
the program's contract authority to augment funding for the
Transportation and Community and System Preservation Pilot
Program (TCSP), the National Corridor Planning and Development
Program, and the Coordinated Border Infrastructure and Safety
Program. Demand for resources under these programs will far
outstrip current authorizations in 2003.
National corridor planning and border infrastructure
programs.--TEA21 created a national corridor planning and
development program that identifies funds for planning, design,
and construction of highway corridors of national significance,
economic growth, and international or interregional trade.
Allocations may be made to corridors identified in section
1105(c) of ISTEA and to other corridors using considerations
outlined in legislation. The coordinated border infrastructure
program is established to improve the safe movement of people
and goods at or across the U.S./Mexico and U.S/Canada borders.
Funds provided for the National Corrider and Border
Infrastructure Program shall be available for the following
activities:
Project Amount
Alameda Corridor East, Rail-Highway Grade Separation
Ontario CA.......................................... $1,000,000
Appalachian North-South Corridor Planning Study, MD..... 2,000,000
Charlotte/Mecklenburg County N/S Transitway, NC......... 3,000,000
Coalfields Expressway, McDowell County, WV.............. 9,000,000
Continental--1 Hwy Corridor, Cambria County, PA......... 1,000,000
Cottondale-Holt Highway, AL............................. 6,000,000
Everett Development 41st Street Interchange, WA......... 1,000,000
Fall River--Route 79 Improvements, MA................... 1,000,000
FAST Corridor Project, WA............................... 10,000,000
Ft. Wainwright Alternative Access & Chena River
Crossing, AK........................................ 2,000,000
Hoover Dam Bridge Bypass, AZ............................ 6,000,000
Hwy 412, Widening, Paragould, Hwy 141, AR............... 7,000,000
Hwy-28 Expansion, Vernon Parish, LA..................... 4,500,000
I-5, SR 542 Widening Sunset Drive Orleans to Britton
Rd., WA............................................. 2,000,000
I-5 Trade Corridor, OR.................................. 4,000,000
I-10/I-12 Split to Seigen Lane, Baton Route, LA......... 4,500,000
I-10/LA1 Interchange Bypass, West Baton Rouge Parish, LA 1,000,000
I-15 widening project, North Las Vegas, NV.............. 1,000,000
I-20 Garrett Road Monroe, LA............................ 1,000,000
I-35-E Widening, Dallas and Ellis Counties, TX.......... 5,000,000
I-49 Northern Extension, LA............................. 4,500,000
I-49 Southern Extension, LA............................. 4,500,000
I-69 Anderson to Flagship Park Center, IN............... 2,000,000
I-69 Construction, TX................................... 5,000,000
I-74 Bridge Project, IA................................. 5,000,000
I-80 Colfax Narrows Project, CA......................... 1,000,000
I-85 Extension from Montgomery to I-20/59, AL........... 1,000,000
Japonski Island Road, AK................................ 1,000,000
Kenai Peninsula Borough Road Improvements, AK........... 1,000,000
Jonesboro Overpass, AR.................................. 1,000,000
King Coal Highway, Mercer County, WV.................... 9,000,000
LA 1 Embankment Stabilization Improvements, LA.......... 4,500,000
LA 11 St. Tammamy Parish, LA............................ 500,000
LA 820, Lincoln Parish, LA.............................. 1,000,000
East-West Highway, ME................................... 3,000,000
Mill Plain Boulevard at I-205, WA....................... 3,500,000
Missisquoi Bay Bridge Reconstruction, VT................ 5,000,000
New Route 905, Otay Mesa to I-5/I-85m, CA............... 5,000,000
North Country Trans. Study, Plattsburgh/Watertown, NY... 3,000,000
Olathe 127th Street Overpass, KS........................ 2,000,000
Osceola Toll Parkway, AR................................ 2,000,000
Panama City Beach, Florida West Bay Bridge Project, FL.. 3,000,000
Peach St. Corridor Improvement Project, PA.............. 2,600,000
Pearl River Bridge Connector, I-55 to SR 475 Jackson, MS 8,000,000
Polk County Highway 22 Project, OR...................... 2,000,000
Route 24/140 Interchange, MA............................ 1,500,000
Rt-12 Corridor Improvement Project, NY.................. 6,000,000
Rt-403 Relocation, East Greenwich/North Kingstown, RI... 4,000,000
SR-130 Right of Way Willamson, Guadalupe, Travis and
Caldwell, TX........................................ 10,000,000
SR-332 Reconstruction at I-69, Delaware County, IN...... 1,800,000
Sunland Park Dr. Border Rd. Extension, NM............... 5,000,000
Tuscaloosa Eastern Bypass, AL........................... 12,000,000
US-5 Improvements from Derby to Barton, VT.............. 2,000,000
US-23 Buford Hwy Pedestrian Safety Project, GA.......... 1,000,000
US-26 Widening SB-Heartland Expressway, NE.............. 3,000,000
US-35/Route 34 to I-64, Putnam County, WV............... 4,000,000
US-51 to MS-43 Connector Road, Canton, MS............... 1,200,000
US-60 widening in Butler County, MO..................... 8,000,000
US-85/C-470 Santa Fe Interchange, CO.................... 6,000,000
US-95, milepost 536 stage 2 construction, Boundary
County, ID.......................................... 1,400,000
US-287, Wiley Junction Improvements, CO................. 5,000,000
US-395, North Spokane Corridor,WA....................... 5,000,000
US-412, AR.............................................. 8,000,000
US 17/521 Improvements, Georgetown, SC.................. 2,500,000
US 278 Highway Safety Modifications, SC................. 4,000,000
WV Route 10, Logan County, WV........................... 8,000,000
Yakima Grade Separation, WA............................. 3,500,000
Ferry boats and ferry terminal facilities.--Section 1207 of
TEA21 reauthorized funding for the construction of ferry boats
and ferry terminal facilities.
Funds provided for the Ferry boats and ferry terminal
facilities program under the Committee recommendation shall be
available for the following activities in the corresponding
amounts:
Project Amount
Beale Street Landing/Docking Facility Memphis, TN....... $500,000
Coffman Cove/Wrangell/Petersburg Ferries & Ferry
Facility, AK........................................ 1,200,000
Corpus Christi Ferry Terminal, TX....................... 500,000
Dock Construction for Hickman/Fulton County, Riverport,
KY.................................................. 1,000,000
Ferry Boat Replacement for Rockland and Vinalhaven, ME.. 2,750,000
Fire Island Ferry Terminal, Saltaire, NY................ 800,000
Friday Harbor Ferry Terminal Preservation, WA........... 2,000,000
Kitsap Transit, Sidney Landing Terminal, WA............. 2,000,000
Middle Bass Ferry Dock Improvements, phase II, OH....... 750,000
North Carolina Shipyard, Manns Harbor, NC............... 1,000,000
San Francisco Bay Area Water Transit Authority Ferry
Project,
CA.................................................. 2,500,000
Ship Island Terminal, Gulfport, MS...................... 500,000
Stamford Ferry Terminal, CT............................. 1,000,000
Vallejo Baylink Ferry, Terminal and Facilities, CA...... 1,500,000
TEA21 Setaside.......................................... 20,000,000
National scenic byways program.--This program provides
funding for roads that are designated by the Secretary of
Transportation as All American Roads (AAR) or National Scenic
Byways (NSB). These roads have outstanding scenic, historic,
cultural, natural, recreational, and archaeological qualities.
The Committee recommendation provides $26,500,000 for this
program in fiscal year 2002.
Transportation and community and system preservation pilot
program.--TEA21 created a new transportation and community and
system preservation program that provides grants to States and
local governments for planning, developing, and implementing
strategies to integrate transportation and community and system
preservation plans and projects. These grants may be used to
improve the efficiency of the transportation system, reduce
transportation externalities and the need for future
infrastructure investment, and improve transportation
efficiency and access consistent with community character.
Funds provided for this program for fiscal year 2003 shall be
available for the following activities:
Project Amount
Aberdeen Downtown Revitalization, WA.................... $100,000
Alexandria, Third St. Downtown Reconnect Project, LA.... 400,000
Amsterdam Revitalization Waterfront, NY................. 500,000
Antelope Valley Overpass, Lincoln, NE................... 1,000,000
Atchinson Riverfront Access Parkway Project, KS......... 1,000,000
Bagley Road Pedestrian Project, Berea, OH............... 1,300,000
Bellingham Central Avenue Pedestrian Corridor, WA....... 250,000
Billings Railroad Separation Study, MT.................. 100,000
Boston Long Island Pier ADA Compliance, MA.............. 200,000
Camp Corsuch Road & Related Improvements, AK............ 500,000
Charles Town Gateway Revitalization Project, WV......... 300,000
Charleston Renaissance Gateway Project, WV.............. 950,000
Concord 20/20 Vision initiative, NH..................... 500,000
Dover Lincoln Park Center Project, DE................... 400,000
East Grand Forks Greenway, MN........................... 500,000
Eugene Federal Courthouse Area Concept Development, OR.. 1,000,000
Fairbanks Street Improvements & Bike Path, AK........... 300,000
Falmouth-Yarmouth Bike Path, MA......................... 200,000
Flandreau Santee Sioux Traibe Bicycle and Walking Path,
SD.................................................. 200,000
Fort Campbell Improvements, KY.......................... 750,000
Frink Park Pier Project, Clayton, NY.................... 250,000
Girdwood Road Culvery Improvement, AK................... 600,000
Granite Street Project, Manchester, NH.................. 350,000
Gulf of Maine Research Laboratory, Park/Ped., ME........ 200,000
Hamilton Twp Pedestrian Overpass, NJ.................... 250,000
Highway-79 Corridor Greenway Project, AL................ 500,000
I-40 and Avenue ``F'', City Ramp Project, OK............ 500,000
I-40/Paseo del Volcan Interchange, Albuquerque NM....... 750,000
I-55/Main St. Intersection, MO.......................... 100,000
Kansas City East/West Connector, MO..................... 500,000
Lewis and Clark Bicentennial Interpretive Trail,
Mobridge SD......................................... 250,000
Lewis and Clark Shared Use Path, ND..................... 675,000
Lithonia Streetscape Project, GA........................ 1,000,000
Living Wall project, Farmington Hills, MI............... 400,000
MD-404 Shore Highway Phase II, MD....................... 1,000,000
Museum Campus Trolleys, Chicago, IL..................... 500,000
Nashville Rolling Mill Hills, TN........................ 500,000
Newberg-Dundee Transportation Improvement Project, OR... 775,000
Northside Drive Corridor Design, Clinton, MS............ 1,000,000
Odessa Transportation Plan, DE.......................... 100,000
Ohio River Trail--Salem to Downtown, Cincinnati, OH..... 350,000
Oklahoma Transportation Center Improvements, OK......... 500,000
Old Route 66, Streetscape Phase I, Moriarity, NM........ 400,000
Orange County Congestion Program, CA.................... 1,000,000
Owensboro Waterfront Development Project, KY............ 750,000
Port of Anchorage road improvements, AK................. 600,000
Paintsville Lake Access Road, KY........................ 500,000
Pennyrile Parkway Improvements, KY...................... 750,000
Portsmouth Piscaraqu Riverwalk, NH...................... 500,000
Providence Road Trail Project, Virginia Beach,VA........ 400,000
Ruffner Mountain Nature Center, AL...................... 500,000
Selma Riverfront Project, AL............................ 500,000
Shoreline Interurban Trail Construction Project, WA..... 400,000
South Bend Studebaker Corridor, Industrial Park, IN..... 500,000
Springfield Downtown Redevelopment Project, VT.......... 1,500,000
SR202/I-70 Interchange improvement, OH.................. 750,000
Thea Foss Waterway Environmental Protection and
Transportation Impact Study, WA..................... 500,000
Tulsa Trail System, Broken Arrow, OK.................... 1,250,000
Ulster County Visitor Center, NY........................ 1,000,000
Union City, NJ Traffic Signalization Project, NJ........ 1,000,000
US-50 Reconstruction, Dodge City, KS.................... 1,000,000
Vanderbilt Children's Hospital, TN...................... 250,000
Virginia Corridor Greenway Pilot Project, Modesto, CA... 500,000
Wakulla County Florida, US-319 Expansion, FL............ 250,000
Watertown Community Trail Extension, SD................. 100,000
Yorktown Waterfront Revitalization & Streetscape, VA.... 1,000,000
10th Street South Project, St. Cloud, MN................ 1,000,000
19th Ave. North Extension/Reconstruction, Clinton, IA... 1,500,000
19th St./Rimrock Way Ped. Improvements, Redmond OR...... 100,000
Appalachian Development Highway System
Appropriations, 2002.................................... $200,000,000
Budget estimate, 2003 \1\...............................................
Committee recommendation................................ 200,000,000
\1\ The budget estimate requests funding under the Federal-Aid Highway
obligation limitation.
The Committee recommendation includes $200,000,000 for the
Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS). The amount
provided is the same as the fiscal year 2002 comparable level.
Funding for this initiative is authorized under section 1069(y)
of Public Law 102-240--the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act. The ADHS program provides funds for the
construction of the Appalachian corridor highways in the 13
States that comprise the Appalachian region. These highways, in
many instances, are intended to replace some of the most
deficient and dangerous segments of rural roadway in America.
Limitation on Transportation Research
Limitation, 2002 \1\.................................... $447,500,000
Budget estimate, 2003 \1\ .............................. 462,500,000
Committee recommendation................................ 462,500,000
\1\ Resources available in fiscal year 2002 and requested in fiscal year
2003 are assumed within the Federal aid highway obligation limitation in
the budget request for fiscal year 2003.
The limitation controls spending for the transportation
research and technology programs of the FHWA. This limitation
includes the intelligent transportation systems, surface
transportation research, technology deployment, training and
education, and university transportation research. The
Committee recommendation provides an obligation limitation for
transportation research of $462,500,000. This limitation is
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
consistent with the provisions of TEA21.
Surface transportation research......................... $103,000,000
Technology deployment program........................... 50,000,000
Training and education.................................. 20,000,000
Bureau of Transportation Statistics..................... 31,000,000
ITS standards, research, operational tests, and
development......................................... 110,000,000
ITS deployment.......................................... 122,000,000
University transportation research...................... 26,500,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Subtotal.......................................... 462,500,000
Highway research and development.--The Committee
appreciates the improvement in the justification accompanying
the budget request and notes the presentation of the surface
research estimate separate from the presentation of the
technology deployment funding estimate.
Environment, planning, and real estate.................. $16,774,000
Research and technology program support................. 8,545,000
International research.................................. 500,000
Structures.............................................. 13,085,000
Safety.................................................. 12,490,000
Highway operations...................................... 13,101,000
Asset management........................................ 3,290,000
Pavements research...................................... 15,200,000
Policy research......................................... 8,510,000
Long Term Pavement Project (LTPP)....................... 10,000,000
Advanced Research....................................... 750,000
R&T strategic planning/performance measures............. 755,000
Environment, planning, and real estate.--The Committee
recommendation includes $16,774,000 for environment, planning,
and real estate research, which is $4,221,000 more than the
budget estimate. Within the funds provided for this research
activity, the Committee has provided $800,000 to continue dust
and persistent particulate abatement research in Kotzebue,
Alaska.
Research and technology program support.--The Committee
recommends $8,545,000, an increase of $1,462,000 from the
budget request and $410,000 more than the fiscal year 2002
enacted level. Within the funds available for research and
technology, the Committee has provided $750,000 for the Center
on Coastal Transportation Research at the University of South
Alabama.
International research.--The Committee recommendation
includes $500,000 for international research. This is the same
amount provided in fiscal year 2002 and is consistent with the
amount authorized under TEA21.
Structures.--The Committee has provided $13,085,000 for
structures research, an increase of $4,067,000 from the budget
request. This research effort allows FHWA reduce deficiencies
on National Highway System bridges and should facilitate
continued progress on high performance materials and
engineering applications to design, repair, retrofit, inspect,
and rehabilitate bridges. The Committee directs the FHWA to
continue its collaborative research effort with West Virginia
University's Construct Facilities Center regarding research
into composite structure and related engineering research.
Within the funds for this research activity, the Committee has
provided $500,000 for a demonstration project to evaluate the
use of battery-powered cathodic protection to extend the life
of concrete bridges that are located in extreme cold weather
conditions. The Committee recommendation also includes $500,000
to support non-destructive structural evaluation technology at
the New Mexico State University's Bridge Research Center.
Safety.--The Committee recommendation provides $12,490,000
for safety research, an increase of $2,973,000 above the budget
estimate. These funds will allow FHWA to continue to accelerate
the substantial progress being made on technologies or
strategies to reduce run-off-road crashes, improve night-time
driving, reduce the frequency of crashes at intersections,
improve pedestrian safety, and develop, test, and refine the
Interactive Highway Safety Design Model. Within the funds
provided, the Committee included $1,500,000 to conduct research
into heavy vehicle safety, and vulnerability assessments
regarding security and safety in all modes of transportation at
a not-for-profit, technology oriented entity in the Pacific
Northwest with demonstrated research capabilities to address
issues of braking, vehicle electrification and human factors.
Highway operations.--The Committee recommendation provides
$13,101,000 for research activities regarding highway
operations, which is $3,309,000 more than the budget request.
Within these funds, the Committee has included $1,200,000 to
analyze existing conditions and make recommendations that will
enhance the freight mobility transportation system in
Washington State.
Asset management.--The Committee recommends $3,290,000 for
asset management research activities, an increase of $631,000
from the budget estimate.
Policy.--The Committee recommendation includes $8,510,000,
an increase of $180,000 from the fiscal year 2002 enacted level
and an increase of $1,263,000 above the budget estimate.
Pavements research.--The Committee recommends $15,200,000
for highway pavement research, including work on asphalt,
Portland cement pavement research, polymer additives, and
recycled materials. This is $4,799,000 more than the budget
estimate and $1,447,000 more than the fiscal year 2002 enacted
level. Within the funds provided, the Committee has included
$1,000,000 to the Center for Portland Cement Concrete Pavement
Technology at Iowa State University; $1,000,000 to continue
evaluation of GSB-88 emulsified binder treatment application;
$1,250,000 for the National Center for Asphalt Technology
(NCAT) and $1,000,000 to continue research related to silica
fume high performance concrete.
Advanced research.--The Committee recommendation deletes
$203,000 from the budget request and provides $750,000. The
Committee notes the many of the proposed areas of research and
technology investigation duplicate efforts in other research
activities and in the ITS research program.
R&T strategic planning and performance measures.--The
Committee has provided $755,000 for research and technology
strategic planning and performance measures, an increase of
$27,000 from the budget request. The Committee anticipates that
this level of funding will be sufficient to support planned
strategic planning activities, research outreach, and
development and refinement of performance measures, as required
by the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA).
Other.--The Committee supports the FHWA effort with AASHTO,
TRB, among others in advancing a national R&T agenda in the
areas of safety, infrastructure renewal, operations and
mobility, planning and environment, and policy analysis and
systems monitoring. The Committee recognizes the benefits of
improved communication and coordination between key partners
and stakeholders, and awaits completion of the synthesis report
on the partnership initiative.
ITS Standards, Research, Operational Tests, Development,
and Deployment.--The Committee recommends that the $232,000,000
authorized in TEA21 for ITS research and associated activities
in fiscal year 2002 be allocated in the following manner:
Research and Development................................ $50,701,000
Operational Tests....................................... 10,782,000
Evaluation/Program Policy Assessment.................... 6,739,000
Architecture and Standards.............................. 18,868,000
Program Support......................................... 11,455,000
Integration............................................. 11,455,000
ITS Deployment Incentive Program........................ 122,000,000
Specified ITS deployment projects.--It is the intent of the
Committee that the following projects contribute to the
integration and interoperability for intelligent transportation
systems in metropolitan and rural areas as provided under
section 5208 of TEA21 and promote deployment of the commercial
vehicle intelligent transportation system infrastructure as
provided under section 5209 of TEA21. Funding for deployment
activities are to be available as follows:
Project Amount
Advance Traveler Info. System & Smart Card System, OH... $2,500,000
Alaska Statewide: Smart Emergency Medical Access System. 3,000,000
Boston Traffic Monitoring & Security System, MA......... 2,000,000
Bozeman Pass Wildlife Channelization Study, MT.......... 500,000
Cargo Mate Logistics and Intermodal Management System,
NY.................................................. 5,000,000
Cary, Computerized Traffic Signal System, NC............ 1,000,000
CCTA Burlington Multimodal Transit Center, VT........... 1,000,000
Center for Injury Sciences at UAB, Crash Notification,
AL.................................................. 2,000,000
Central Florida Regional Trans. Authority, Orange/
Seminole ITS, FL.................................... 2,000,000
Chinatown Intermodal Trans. Center, Los Angeles, CA..... 2,500,000
Concord Parkway, Traffic Signals, NC.................... 1,500,000
CVISN, NM............................................... 1,125,000
Flint Mass Transportation Authority ITS program, MI..... 1,000,000
Intelligent Transportation Center, Atlanta, GA.......... 750,000
GMU, ITS Research, VA................................... 2,000,000
Great Lakes ITS program, MI............................. 4,000,000
Harrison County Sheriff's Department, ITS, MS........... 1,000,000
Hoosier SAFE-T, IN...................................... 3,000,000
Huntsville, AL.......................................... 2,000,000
I-80 Dynamic Message Signs, Southern WY................. 4,000,000
Idaho CVISN............................................. 2,250,000
Illinois Statewide...................................... 5,000,000
Iowa Statewide ITS...................................... 1,650,000
Kansas City Scout, Advanced Traffic Management System,
KS.................................................. 1,500,000
Kansas City SmartPort................................... 1,000,000
Kent, Intracity Transit Project, WA..................... 1,500,000
Lynnwood ITS, WA........................................ 2,000,000
Maine Statewide, Rural Advanced Traveler Info. System,
ME.................................................. 2,000,000
Maryland Statewide ITS.................................. 2,000,000
Missouri Statewide Rural ITS, MO........................ 2,000,000
NDSU Advanced Traffic Analysis Center, ND............... 1,000,000
Nebraska statewide ITS.................................. 5,000,000
New Bedford ITS Port Information Center, MA............. 1,000,000
Oklahoma Statewide ITS.................................. 7,000,000
Program of Projects, WA................................. 5,500,000
Providence Transportation Information Center, ITS, RI... 2,000,000
Sacramento Area Council of Governments, ITS, CA......... 1,000,000
Shreveport ITS Project, LA.............................. 1,000,000
South Carolina Statewide ITS............................ 6,000,000
SR-68/Riverside Dr. ITS, Espanola, NM................... 475,000
Surface Transportation Institute, Univ. of North Dakota,
ND.................................................. 1,500,000
T-REX Southeast Corridor Multi-Modal Project, CO........ 9,000,000
Tucson ER-LINK ITS project, AZ.......................... 1,250,000
Univ. of Nebraska Lincoln, SMART Transportation, NE..... 2,000,000
University of Kentucky Transportation Center, KY........ 2,000,000
Utah Commuter Link, Davis and Utah Counties, UT......... 1,000,000
Vermont Statewide Rural Advanced Traveler System, VT.... 1,500,000
Vermont Variable Message Signs, VT...................... 1,000,000
Washington DC Metro ITS................................. 4,000,000
Willowbrook Avenue Rail Safety Program--Compton, CA..... 2,000,000
Wisconsin State Patrol Mobile Data Communications
Network............................................. 2,000,000
Illinois ITS.--The Committee provides $5,000,000 to the
Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) for Intelligent
Transportation Systems grants. The Committee expects IDOT to
fund the following projects: $750,000 to Lake County for
traffic corridor communications systems; $450,000 to DuPage
County for traffic signal coordination; $850,000 for an I-55/
Lake Springfield Fixed Anti-Icing System; $800,000 to the
Village of Bourbonnais for congestion relief projects; and
$150,000 for the city of Marion's traffic control project. The
Committee further provides $2,000,000 to the city of Chicago
for Intelligent Transportation Systems grants, including the
Cicero Avenue Traveler Information project and the Traffic
Management Center.
Nationwide Differential Global Positioning System
Appropriations, 2002 \1\................................ $6,000,000
Budget estimate, 2003 \2\............................... 6,000,000
Committee recommendation \2\............................ (6,000,000)
\1\ Funding derived from limitation on administrative expenses.
\2\ Funding for NDGPS provided within FAA ``facilities and equipment''
account.
NDGPS.--The Committee recommendation includes $6,000,000
for continued investment in the Nationwide NPGPS Network. The
funding is provided within the FAA's facilities and equipment
account.
Bureau of Transportation Statistics
(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)
Appropriations, 2002.................................... $31,000,000
Budget estimate, 2003 \1\............................... 31,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 31,000,000
\1\ Does not reflect $675,000 requested to cover full funding of Federal
retiree costs.
The Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) was
established in section 6006 of the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act [ISTEA], to compile, analyze, and
make accessible information on the Nation's transportation
systems, collect information on intermodal transportation, and
enhance the quality and effectiveness of the statistical
programs of the Department of Transportation.
Federal-Aid Highways
(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)
(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)
Appropriations, 2002
$30,000,000,000
Budget estimate, 2003
29,000,000,000
Committee recommendation
32,000,000,000
The Committee recommends a liquidating cash appropriation
of $32,000,000,000.
FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
Summary of Fiscal Year 2003 Program
In December 1999, the Congress passed the Motor Carrier
Safety Improvement Act (Public Law 106-159), which established
the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) within
the Department of Transportation. Prior to this legislation,
motor carrier safety responsibilities were housed within the
Federal Highway Administration.
The preeminent mission of the FMCSA is to improve the
safety of commercial vehicle operations on the nation's
highways. A primary goal of the agency is to reduce the number
of accidents and fatalities due to truck accidents. FMCSA
resources and activities contribute to safety in commercial
vehicle operations through enforcement, safety regulation,
technological innovation, improvements in information systems,
training, and improvements to commercial driver's license
testing, record keeping, and sanctions. To achieve these goals,
the FMCSA works with Federal, State, and local enforcement
agencies, the motor carrier industry, and highway safety
organizations.
Motor Carrier Safety
(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)
The Motor Carrier Safety program provides for the salaries,
operating expenses, research funding for the FMCSA. The Motor
Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 (MCSIA) amended Section
104(a)(1) of title 23 to provide one-third of 1 percent of the
administrative takedown to be made available to administer
motor carrier safety programs and motor carrier research. The
administration's budget requests a takedown of 45/100 of 1
percent for these purposes.
LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE
Appropriations, 2002 \1\................................ $110,000,000
Budget estimate, 2003 (limitation)...................... 117,464,000
Committee recommendation \2\............................ 117,464,000
\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $158,000 pursuant to Public Law 107-
87, as amended by Public Law 107-117.
\2\ Includes $3,000,000 provided from FHWA's administrative takedown.
The Committee recommendation provides a total of
$117,464,000 for operating expenses and research funding for
the FMCSA consistent with the budget request. Of the funds
provided, $110,464,000 is for operating expenses and $7,000,000
is for research and technology initiatives. The recommendation
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
provides the following adjustments to the budget request:
Share the Road Safely......................................... -$100,000
Safety is Good Business Program............................... -250,000
R&T Information Dissemination................................. -150,000
Hazardous Materials Safety and Security....................... +500,000
Domestic motor carrier safety.--While FMCSA has moved
expeditiously to implement the United States-Mexico cross-
border trucking safety provisions, the Committee remains
concerned about the lack of progress that has been made in
commercial motor vehicle safety in recent years. Despite the
fact that there has been a nearly 50 percent increase in
funding for motor carrier safety activities since the FMCSA was
created in 1999, there has been only a 3.5 percent decrease in
the number of fatalities involving large truck crashes. In
fact, more than one out of ten people killed in motor vehicle
incidents are involved in a crash with a large truck even
though large trucks represent a very small percentage of total
registered vehicles. Given this record, it calls into question
whether the FMCSA will achieve its 1999 goal of reducing truck
deaths and injuries by 50 percent by 2009.
The Committee reminds FMCSA that the agency's safety
oversight efforts for domestic truck traffic should be equal
to, if not greater than, those for cross-border traffic. The
fact that it takes FMCSA an average of 4 years to complete a
rulemaking and that many rules have not been published by their
statutory deadlines is evidence that the agency has a long way
to go in pursuing its safety mission. Furthermore, in the
aftermath of the events of September 11th, the Committee urges
FMCSA to be particularly attentive to the security risks
associated with the commercial driver's license program and the
transportation of hazardous materials as discussed in greater
detail in this report.
Commercial drivers license oversight.--Federal regulations
require individuals to carry a commercial driver's license
(CDL) when operating a commercial motor vehicle weighing in
excess of 26,001 pounds, when hauling hazardous materials or
when transporting at least 16 passengers. Over the last decade,
the number of CDL holders has doubled to over 10.5 million
today and it is estimated that nearly 470,000 new CDLs are
issued each year. Since truck travel volume is expected to
increase roughly 20 percent over the next decade, it is
critically important that FMCSA put adequate safety measures in
place to effectively monitor the commercial motor vehicle
industry and commercial motor vehicle drivers. The fiscal year
2002 Supplemental Appropriations bill included $17,300,000 for
FMCSA to boost CDL fraud detection and prevention efforts as
well as to conduct background check reviews of CDL drivers who
hold or seek hazardous materials endorsements. These additional
funds will assist FMCSA in its efforts to address the
deficiencies in the CDL licensing and testing program that were
outlined in the Inspector General's May, 2002 report. The
Committee notes that the FMCSA concurred with nearly all of the
IG's recommendations with the exception of the IG's
recommendation to require covert procedures for monitoring
State and third-party CDL examiners. Given the expected growth
in the number of CDL holders, it is essential that FMCSA
conduct timely compliance reviews of state CDL programs as well
as utilize covert monitoring techniques of State and third-
party CDL examiners. As such, the Committee directs FMSCA to
adopt a standard that requires covert monitoring in the menu of
oversight activities for State and third-party CDL examiners.
Hazardous materials transportation.--Every day in the
United States, there are over 800,000 shipments of hazardous
materials ranging from flammable materials and explosives to
poisons and corrosives. The Committee commends FMCSA for
completing over 38,000 security sensitivity visits of hazardous
materials transportation and other at-risk providers earlier
this year. These visits have served to increase the level of
awareness of hazardous materials carriers to terrorist threats
and to identify potential security vulnerabilities for
corrective or law enforcement action. However, the Committee
firmly believes that FMCSA must continue to aggressively
monitor the safety and security vulnerabilities in the
transportation of hazardous materials since 90 percent of
hazardous material shipments occur by truck. The Committee
urges FMCSA to vigorously enforce compliance with Federal
hazardous materials regulations and to encourage States to
appropriately utilize the motor carrier safety assistance
program for hazardous materials training and enforcement. With
regard to hazardous materials safety and security research, the
Committee provides $758,000 which is $500,000 more than the
budget request. The additional funds above the budget request
shall be used to expand and expedite the completion of FMCSA's
hazardous materials security risk assessments.
``Safety is Good Business'' Program.--The Committee has
deleted the funding for this initiative in the motor carrier
research program. The Committee believes that the ``Safety is
Good Business'' program should be funded out of FMCSA's high
priority initiatives program within the motor carrier safety
assistance program.
Crash causation study.--The Committee recommends $5,000,000
for the continuation of FMCSA's comprehensive crash causation
study. The Committee appreciates the complexity of this study
which now involves over 100 Federal, state and contractor
support personnel. Over 450 crashes have been investigated, but
many of these have not been completely coded. The Committee
understands that the FMCSA sought out a Transportation Research
Board committee to review the first set of large truck crash
causation cases and to make recommendations on what coding
changes may be necessary. The Committee reiterates its message
from last year that it is imperative that the results of this
study should be made available as soon as possible. The study's
results will assist FMCSA in setting safety priorities as well
as serve as useful tool for Congressional oversight and
legislative activities. The Committee directs FMCSA and NHTSA
to submit a letter report to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations by March 15, 2003 indicating the study's
progress; the Department's response to and status of TRB's
recommendations; and, a time schedule for the release of its
initial results.
Share the road safely.--The Committee provides a total of
$600,000 for the ``Share the Road Safely'' program which is
designed to educate the motoring public on how to share the
road safely with large trucks and buses. As required by the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, $500,000 of the
funds provided for this program are transferred from NHTSA's
highway safety program account. While this program is
administered by the FMCSA, the Committee believes that NHTSA
should have input into the program's development since NHTSA is
the agency with primary responsibility for the behavioral
programs geared toward passenger car drivers. The Committee
urges FMCSA to coordinate the agency's ``share the road''
efforts with NHTSA.
Young driver pilot program.--In February, 2001, the FMCSA
requested comments on a proposal that the agency had received
to initiate a pilot program which would waive Federal
regulations to allow individuals between the ages of 18 and 21
to work in truck driver jobs in interstate commerce. Current
Federal safety regulations require that commercial motor
vehicle drivers be at least 21 years of age. The Committee is
aware that FMCSA has received comments from state
transportation officials and private citizens opposing this
proposal due to safety concerns. Given the fact that young
drivers are overrepresented in motor vehicle crashes, the
Committee is not convinced of the merits of this proposal.
Prior to the approval of such a pilot program, the Committee
directs the FMCSA Administrator to conduct a thorough analysis
of the safety ramifications and whether there's a genuine
shortage of truck drivers to warrant such a waiver of the
Federal safety regulations.
Driver record improvements.--Section 204 of the Motor
Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 (MCSIA) requires States
to query the National Driver Register (NDR) and the Commercial
Driver's License Information System prior to issuing or
renewing a motor vehicle operator's license. The Committee
notes that the rule implementing this provision has yet to be
promulgated and would remind FMCSA and NHTSA that each agency
shares an equal responsibility for fulfilling the MCSIA
requirement. However, progress on this rule has been stalled
because each agency believes that the other has the lead on the
rule's development. The Committee directs the Secretary to
assign either FMCSA or NHTSA as the lead agency in the rule's
development and urges both agencies to move forward
expeditiously on this rule as other driver record improvements,
such as the one-driver, one-record pointer system, are further
developed. In that regard, the Committee directs NHTSA and
FMCSA to conduct an analysis of the costs associated with the
development of a one-driver, one-record pointer system and the
strategic steps necessary for its implementation and submit
that analysis to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations by June 1, 2003.
Driver research.--Within the funds provided for FMCSA's
research and technology program, the Committee provides
$700,000 for the Transportation Research Institute at the
George Washington University VA Campus for advanced research on
driver error related to fatigue, inattentiveness and sleep
deprivation through the use of sophisticated in-vehicle
monitoring and assistance systems related to vehicle
performance. In addition, the Committee has included $250,000
to initiate a separate multidisciplinary driver research
program that evaluates cognitive sensory, environmental,
mechanical, and large-scale epidemiologic aspects of driver
behavior in order to identify measures that show promise of
improving safety and reduce the likelihood of serious injury.
National Motor Carrier Safety Program
(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)
(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Liquidation of
contract (Limitation on
authorization) obligations)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2002............ $205,896,000 $205,896,000
Budget estimate, 2003........... 190,000,000 190,000,000
Committee recommendation........ 190,000,000 190,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FMCSA's National Motor Carrier Safety Program (NMCSP)
was authorized by TEA21 and amended by the Motor Carrier Safety
Improvement Act of 1999. This program consists of two major
areas: the motor carrier safety assistance program (MCSAP) and
the information systems and strategic safety initiatives
(ISSSI). MCSAP provides grants and project funding to States to
develop and implement national programs for the uniform
enforcement of Federal and State rules and regulations
concerning motor safety. The major objective of this program is
to reduce the number and severity of accidents involving
commercial motor vehicles. Grants are made to qualified States
for the development of programs to enforce the Federal motor
carrier safety and hazardous materials regulations and the
Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986. The basic program
is targeted at roadside vehicle safety inspections of both
interstate and intrastate commercial motor vehicle traffic.
ISSSI provides funds to develop and enhance data-related motor
carrier programs.
The Committee recommends $190,000,000 in liquidating cash
for this program consistent with the authorized contract
activity level.
LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS
The Committee recommends a $190,000,000 limitation on
obligations for motor carrier safety grants. This is the level
authorized under the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of
1999, which amended TEA21.
Truck driver training program.--Within the funds provided
for FMCSA's high priority initiative program, the Committee
provides $700,000 for the development of a concrete skid pad at
Lewis-Clark State College North Lewiston Training Facility. The
project would enable the creation of controlled ``adverse''
weather situations, including ice and rain, as well as faulty
braking systems, tire blow-outs, and anti-skid equipment
failure, as part of the Commercial Drivers License Training
program, which provides safety training for bus and commercial
motor vehicle drivers.
Highway watch program.--Within the funds provided for
FMCSA's high priority initiative program, the Committee
provides $1,000,000 for the continuation of the Highway Watch
program. The Highway Watch program trains professional truck
drivers to recognize and report a variety of incidents on the
Nation's highways. As the program is expanded to reach an
increasing number of truck drivers, the Committee urges that a
security component be included in the training to help truck
drivers better identify potential security threats.
Operation respond.--Within the funds provided for FMCSA's
high priority initiatives, the Committee includes $1,000,000 to
design, build, and demonstrate the benefits of a seamless
hazardous materials incident detection, management, and
response system, including the expansion of the Operation
Respond network of emergency responders and by linking this
network with tracking and automatic crash notification
technologies. The Committee urges that, working with the
private sector, these funds be used to establish a national
first responder emergency services network and to accelerate
deployment of Operation Respond software.
BORDER ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)
Appropriations, 2002.................................... $25,866,000
Budget estimate, 2003................................... 59,967,000
Committee recommendation................................ \1\ 59,967,000
\1\ Funded under FHWA administrative takedown.
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), enacted in
1993, anticipated the initiation of cross-border trucking
shipments between the United States and Mexico by December,
1995. The previous Administration made a specific decision not
to allow Mexico-domiciled motor carriers to transport cross-
border shipments beyond a limited commercial zone into the
United States due to concerns over the safety of the Mexican
trucking fleet. In February, 2001, an Arbitral Panel issued a
finding that the United States was out of compliance with NAFTA
and could not bar all Mexican applicants from entering the
United States. However, the Panel clearly stipulated that NAFTA
did not restrict the ability of the United States to implement
measures to ensure Mexican trucking companies and Mexican truck
drivers meet U.S. safety standards.
Last year, the Committee dedicated a significant amount of
time and effort to the safety concerns associated with the
initiation of cross-border trucking shipments between the
United States and Mexico when the Administration announced its
intention to open the border by January, 2002. The fiscal year
2002 Transportation Appropriations Act included a general
provision which required a number of actions by the Secretary
of Transportation, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA) and the Inspector General (IG) prior to
the opening of the United States-Mexico border to commercial
vehicle traffic beyond the commercial zone. A key provision was
the requirement that the Inspector General conduct a
comprehensive review of border operations to verify whether
safety requirements are in place. The Inspector General's
report of June 25, 2002 states that the FMCSA has made measured
progress toward meeting the Act's requirements to hire and
train inspectors; establish inspection facilities; and develop
safety processes and procedures for Mexican long-haul carriers.
However, the IG's report indicates that there are remaining
issues of concern and the Administration must do more work
before the border is open. Two areas that need additional
attention are law enforcement authority's access to databases
and the ability of States to prosecute Mexican trucks operating
in violation of U.S. law. Specifically, the IG's report states
that Mexico's commercial driver's license (CDL) and vehicle
registration databases are sufficiently accurate and integrated
into databases. However, 6 of the 25 United States-Mexico
border crossings do not have adequate access to these databases
to verify licenses, registration, operating authority or
insurance. Additionally, the Transportation Act required the IG
to verify that measures are in place to enable U.S. law
enforcement authorities to ensure the effective enforcement and
monitoring of Mexican motor carriers according to U.S. law. The
IG's report points out only two States--Arizona and
California--have enacted legislation authorizing their
enforcement personnel to take action when they encounter a
vehicle operating without authority. This means that 48 States
lack any law to put out-of-service or penalize large trucks
that are caught operating without Federal operating authority.
The Committee strongly believes that this safety gap needs to
be closed before the border is open. The Committee was pleased
at the June 27, 2002 oversight hearing to receive the Secretary
of Transportation's commitment to include operating authority
violations among the safety criteria for placing vehicles out
of service and expects this action to be taken before the
border is open.
Finally, Section 350 of the fiscal year 2002 Transportation
Appropriations Act requires that, prior to the opening of the
United States-Mexico border to commercial vehicle traffic, the
Secretary of Transportation must certify in writing in a manner
addressing the IG's findings a verification that opening the
border does not pose an unacceptable safety risk to the
American public. Once the border is open, the full impact of
these safety requirements can be evaluated as to whether they
are sufficient. The Committee intends to continue to closely
monitor the implementation of the United States-Mexico cross-
border trucking provisions to ensure that safety is not
compromised. The Committee has included a general provision
continuing the cross-border safety provisions included in the
2002 Transportation Appropriations Act.
The Committee recommends $41,967,000 for Federal border
enforcement staffing and operations and $18,000,000 for State
operations grants to the southern border States.
Additional border enforcement funding is provided in this
bill including $8,250,000 for State operations grants under the
National Motor Carrier Safety Program, and $47,000,000 for
inspection station construction under the Federal Highway
Administrator's administrative takedown.
NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
Summary of Fiscal Year 2003 Program
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
was established as a separate organizational entity in the
Department of Transportation in March 1970. It succeeded the
National Highway Safety Bureau, which previously had
administered traffic and highway safety functions as an
organizational unit of the Federal Highway Administration.
The agency's current programs are authorized in four major
laws: (1) the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act,
(chapter 301 of title 49, U.S.C.); (2) the Highway Safety Act,
(chapter 4 of title 23, U.S.C.); (3) the Motor Vehicle
Information and Cost Savings (MVICSA) Act, (Part C of subtitle
VI of title 49, U.S.C.), and (4) the Transportation Equity Act
for the 21st Century (TEA21).
The first law provides for the establishment and
enforcement of safety standards for vehicles and associated
equipment and the conduct of supporting research, including the
acquisition of required testing facilities and the operation of
the national driver register (NDR). Discrete authorizations
were subsequently established for the NDR under the National
Driver Register Act of 1982.
The second law provides for coordinated national highway
safety programs (section 402) to be carried out by the States
and for highway safety research, development, and demonstration
programs (section 403). The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (Public
Law 100-690) authorized a new drunk driving prevention program
(section 410) to make grants to States to implement and enforce
drunk driving prevention programs.
The third law (MVICSA) provides for the establishment of
low-speed collision bumper standards, consumer information
activities, diagnostic inspection demonstration projects,
automobile content labeling, and odometer regulations. An
amendment to this law established the Secretary's
responsibility, which was delegated to NHTSA, for the
administration of mandatory automotive fuel economy standards.
A 1992 amendment to the MVICSA established automobile content
labeling requirements.
The fourth law (TEA21) reauthorizes the full range of NHTSA
programs and enacts a number of new initiatives. These include:
safety incentives to prevent operation of motor vehicles by
intoxicated persons (section 163 of title 23 U.S.C.); seat belt
incentive grants (section 157 of title 23 U.S.C.); occupant
protection incentive grants (section 405); and highway safety
data improvement incentive grant program (section 411). TEA21
also reauthorized highway safety research, development and
demonstration programs (section 403) to include research
measures that may deter drugged driving, educate the motoring
public on how to share the road safely with commercial motor
vehicles, and provide vehicle pursuit training for police.
Finally, TEA21 adopts a number of new motor vehicle safety and
information provisions, including rulemaking directions for
improving air bag crash protection systems, lobbying
restrictions, exemptions from the odometer requirements for
classes or categories of vehicles the Secretary deems
appropriate, and adjustments to the automobile domestic content
labeling requirements.
In 2000, the Transportation Recall Enhancement,
Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act amended the
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act in numerous
respects and enacted many new initiatives. These consist of a
number of new motor vehicle safety and information provisions,
including a requirement that manufacturers give NHTSA notice of
safety recalls or safety campaigns in foreign countries
involving motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment
that are identical or substantially similar to vehicles or
equipment in the United States; higher civil penalties for
violations of the law; a criminal penalty for violations of the
law's reporting requirements; and a number of rulemaking
directions that include developing a dynamic rollover test for
light duty vehicles, updating the tire safety and labeling
standards, improving the safety of child restraints, and
establishing a child restraint safety rating consumer
information program.
The following table summarizes the Committee
recommendations:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Committee
Program 2002 enacted 2003 estimate recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations and research...................................... $200,264,000 $200,444,508 $215,000,000
National driver register (HTF)............................... (2,000,000) (2,000,000) (2,000,000)
Highway traffic safety grants (firewall)..................... 223,000,000 225,000,000 225,000,000
--------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................. 423,264,000 425,444,508 440,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations and Research
(INCLUDING HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Fund Trust Fund Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2002......................................... $126,264,000 $74,000,000 $200,264,000
Budget estimate, 2003 \1\.................................... 126,444,508 74,000,000 200,444,508
Committee recommendation..................................... 141,000,000 74,000,000 215,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes 4,437,000 for CSRS/FEHB accurals.
For fiscal year 2003, the Transportation Equity Act for the
21st Century (TEA21), as amended, authorizes $72,000,000 of
contract authority from the highway trust fund to finance
operations and research activities eligible under title 23
U.S.C. 403. This funding is included within the firewall
guarantee for highway spending. The act also includes an
authorization, subject to appropriations, from the highway
trust fund of $2,000,000 to maintain the National Driver
Register. In addition, the administration is requesting
$130,881,000 for activities related to sections 30104 and 32102
of title 49. This funding is derived from the general fund and
is subject to appropriations.
The accompanying bill provides appropriations totaling
$215,000,000 to be distributed as follows:
Committee
Program recommendation
Salaries and benefits................................... $63,328,000
Travel.................................................. 1,324,000
Operating expenses...................................... 22,834,000
Contract Programs:
Safety performance.................................. 10,393,000
Safety assurance.................................... 15,760,000
Highway safety...................................... 52,458,000
Research and analysis............................... 59,396,000
General administration.............................. 657,000
Grant administration reimbursement...................... -11,150,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 215,000,000
OPERATING EXPENSES
Workforce planning and development.--NHTSA established this
program in fiscal year 2001 in an effort to encourage college
students to enter into the fields of engineering, research,
science and technology, vehicle safety and injury. The
Committee recognizes the agency's desire to build a base of
employees for future employment but would note that the
challenges of attrition in the transportation workforce are not
unique to NHTSA. The Committee believes that this type of
workforce planning should be done throughout the entire
Department of Transportation through the coordination of the
office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration. The
Committee includes $300,000 within the NHTSA budget for a more
measured initiative in this area.
Contract execution delays.--The Committee is aware that
there continue to be excessive delays in the timely execution
of NHTSA contracts. All too frequently, contract recipients
have had to wait for several months before Federal funds are
granted. The Committee expects greater attention to this area
and insists that once a contract has been awarded that it
should be executed in a timely fashion. The Committee directs
the NHTSA Administrator to conduct a thorough review of the
agency's contracting procedures and to take appropriate steps
to eliminate any unnecessary delays.
safety performance standards
Passenger vehicle tire traction.--The Transportation Recall
Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation Act of 2000
(TREAD) mandated the Secretary to strengthen the Federal
standards governing tire safety performance. NHTSA issued a
proposed rulemaking on March 5, 2002, to revise and update its
tire safety standards. The proposed rule addresses tire safety
from the vantage point of reducing the chances of tire failure
principally by increasing tire resistance to heat and high
speed operation. Although NHTSA has a consumer information
program, the Uniform Tire Quality Grading System, which assigns
traction ratings to tires marketed in the United States, there
is no Federal standard requiring acceptable levels of tire
adhesion or traction, especially for passenger vehicles
operating on wet road surfaces. As NHTSA prepares its final
rule on tire safety performance, the Committee encourages NHTSA
to consider including standards for tire performance on wet
road surfaces. Absent such inclusion, the Committee directs
NHTSA to send a letter to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations explaining why wet road tire performance
standards were not included.
SAFETY ASSURANCE
Defect information system.--NHTSA's Office of Defect
Investigation is in the process of replacing its current defect
database with a new information system. When fully operational,
this new system, which is being developed by the Volpe National
Transportation Systems Center, will store consumer complaints
as well as the early warning data as required by the TREAD Act.
The Inspector General issued a report earlier this year which
raised concerns about whether this new information system can
be successfully implemented on-time and within the estimated
$5,000,000 budget. The Committee believes that NHTSA should be
attentive to the concerns raised by the IG and directs NHTSA to
provide a letter to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations which details the current schedule and cost
estimate for this system.
highway safety programs
The Committee recommends the following adjustments to the
budget request:
Occupant protection: Outreach initiatives to increase
belt use............................................ +$3,500,000
Emergency medical services.............................. +1,000,000
Impaired driving:
Judicial/prosecutorial initiative................... +1,500,000
Repeat offender tracking model...................... +3,000,000
Target population outreach.......................... +1,500,000
Motorcycle safety....................................... +300,000
Drugs, driving and youth................................ +295,000
Highway safety research................................. +200,000
National occupant protection program.--The stated
objectives of NHTSA's occupant protection program are to
increase seat belt use and decrease the number of child
occupant fatalities. Over the last several years, NHTSA has set
aggressive goals for achieving seat belt use across the nation
since each percentage point increase in seat belt use saves
approximately 226 lives and prevents over 3,700 injuries each
year. NHTSA's seat belt goal in 2001 was 86 percent and while
seat belt use reached an all-time high of 73 percent, the
agency still fell far short of its national goal. The Committee
is disappointed that NHTSA's seat belt goal dropped from 87
percent in 2002 to 78 percent in 2003 and that the agency's
fiscal year 2003 budget cut its core safety program dedicated
to national occupant protection by 14 percent. The Committee
strongly believes that NHTSA must continue to be vigilant and
creative in its efforts to increase national seat belt use
particularly for those targeted groups that are high-risk and
often difficult to reach. The Committee recommends $14,683,000
for NHTSA's occupant protection efforts which is $3,500,000
more than the President's budget request. The Committee directs
that these additional funds be used to continue the outreach
activities toward minority populations, teens and rural
populations. To further supplement NHTSA's overall seat belt
efforts, the Committee has included bill language to continue
the public service message program that was started in fiscal
year 2002. A more detailed discussion of this program is
included in the NHTSA bill language section of this report.
Impaired driving.--The Committee is very concerned about
the lack of progress that is being made to reduce the number of
alcohol-related motor vehicle fatalities. In 2000, there were
16,653 alcohol-related fatalities which was 5.4 percent more
than 1999 and represented the largest percentage increase on
record. These alcohol-related crashes also cause an estimated
300,000 injuries and cost society over $45,000,000,000 every
year. Unfortunately, the preliminary estimates for 2001
indicate there was virtually no reduction in the number of
alcohol-related fatalities. At the Committee's hearing on
highway safety on February 27, 2002, witnesses testified that
the progress in meeting national goals to reduce alcohol-
impaired driving has stalled in recent years. Again, as in the
case of NHTSA's occupant protection program, the fiscal year
2003 budget reduced NHTSA's impaired driving core program by 22
percent at a time when alcohol-related fatalities are
increasing. The Committee recommends $15,576,000 for NHTSA's
impaired driving program which is $6,000,000 more than the
President's budget request.
Judicial and prosecutorial awareness.--Within the funds
provided for NHTSA's impaired driving program, the Committee
provides $1,500,000 to improve prosecutorial and judicial
actions to combat alcohol-impaired driving. A review of past
NHTSA expenditures to combat impaired driving revealed that the
agency has dedicated only a small portion of Section 403 funds
to support the role of prosecutors and judges in dealing with
impaired drivers. The Committee directs the Secretary of
Transportation, in cooperation with the Attorney General, to
conduct a detailed analysis designed to strengthen Federal
policies and laws intended to combat alcohol-impaired driving
and document the results and recommendations. This report
should identify best strategies for reducing obstacles to
obtaining convictions of alcohol-impaired driving and
strategies to help prosecutors and judges apply sanctions in a
consistent manner. The report should also emphasize strategies
to reduce plea bargaining, diversion or deferral programs, and
other means used by offenders to avoid any permanent record of
an alcohol-related offense. In particular, the analysis should
provide guidance for improving judicial and prosecutorial
training, outreach, and adherence to state standards of
conduct. The Committee directs NHTSA to submit this report to
the Senate and House Committees on Appropriations by October 1,
2003.
Tracking repeat offenders.--The Committee includes
$3,000,000 within NHTSA's impaired driving program to expedite
the development and expand the testing of the model ``Driver
History Information Records System for Impaired Driving.'' This
tracking system is designed to assist States and local
communities exchange timely information about prior impaired
driving offenses and to transmit conviction and license
suspension notices among law enforcement officials, the courts
and driver licensing agencies.
Impaired driving and targeted populations.--The Committee
is concerned that there continues to be certain segments of the
population that are over represented in alcohol-related motor
vehicle crashes. For example, male drivers between the ages of
21 and 34 represent the highest percentage of alcohol-related
fatalities. The Committee strongly believes that NHTSA must
continue to vigorously pursue strategies to reduce impaired
driving among the age groups and ethnic populations that
represent the highest risk. Within the funds provided for
NHTSA's impaired driving program, the Committee includes
$1,500,000 to increase the outreach efforts with these targeted
populations.
Highway safety research.--The Committee includes $7,298,000
for NHTSA's highway safety research program, an increase of
$200,000 above the President's budget request. Within the funds
provided, the Committee includes $200,000 to initiate research
on advanced alcohol ignition interlock systems. A key component
of this research is the development of advanced technologies
for use in the steering wheel that could detect blood alcohol
levels.
Drugs, driving and youth.--The Committee recommendation
includes $1,437,000 for NHTSA's drugs, driving and youth
program efforts, an increase of $295,000 over the President's
budget. The Committee is concerned about the data which
indicates that alcohol and drug use is increasing among
teenagers. Since this youth population is expected to increase
nearly 5 percent by the year 2005, the Committee believes it is
particularly important for NHTSA to boost its impaired driving
youth prevention and education activities. The Committee is
aware of programs such as the ``Protecting You, Protecting Me''
curriculum which is designed to educate children in grades 1
through 5 about the dangers of riding in a car with an impaired
driver and underage alcohol consumption. The Committee directs
NHTSA to utilize these additional funds to develop a similar
type of program directed toward teenager drivers.
Emergency medical services.--The Committee recommends
$3,189,000 for emergency medical services, which is $1,000,000
more than the President's budget request. Within the funds
provided, the Committee includes $1,000,000 to continue
training EMS personnel in delivering pre-hospital care to
patients with traumatic brain injuries. Since this program's
inception in 1998, it is estimated that nearly 31 states will
have received the training and educational material and over
1,600 in-state instructors will have received training. The
Committee urges NHTSA to continue this national rollout with
the Brain Trauma Foundation and its Centers of Excellence. Just
as it is important for EMS personnel to receive proper training
to care for the critically injured, it is equally important
that first responders have the tools necessary to locate the
injured as quickly as possible. There have been a number of
highly publicized cases of crash victims who were stranded for
extended periods of time because their vehicles were not easily
located. Advanced location technology associated with wireless
E 9-1-1 can assist law enforcement and EMS personnel in
reaching victims quickly. The Committee notes that NHTSA's
fiscal year 2003 budget includes plans to develop a national
clearinghouse and best practices document for State
implementation of wireless E 9-1-1. As these implementation
tools are developed, the Committee encourages NHTSA to consult
with a broad range of EMS providers, law enforcement officials,
wireless technology providers and the appropriate Federal and
State agencies.
Motorcycle safety.--The Committee provides $945,000 for
NHTSA's motorcycle safety efforts which represents a $300,000
increase over the President's budget. The Committee is
concerned about the upward trend in the number of motorcycle
fatalities. From 1999 to 2000, motorcycle fatalities rose by 15
percent and the preliminary estimates for 2001 indicate that
fatalities rose by another 7.2 percent over 2000. Since new
unit sales of on-highway motorcycles have increased in recent
years, rider training programs have not been able to keep pace.
In December 2000, NHTSA assembled a technical working group
comprised of law enforcement, health care, insurance and
motorcycle organizations to assist in the development of the
National Agenda for Motorcycle Safety. The Committee has
provided increased funding to further assist in the
implementation of the Agenda's urgent and essential
recommendations. In particular, the Committee urges NHTSA to
coordinate with the motorcycle community to focus these
additional resources toward strategies which will enhance rider
crash avoidance skills and improve motorcycle conspicuity.
RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS
National Automotive Sampling System.--The Committee
provides $11,570,000 for the National Automotive Sampling
System (NASS), an increase of $1,000,000 over the President's
budget request. The NASS General Estimates System data assists
in assessing the trend and magnitude of the crash situation in
this country, and the NASS Crashworthiness Data System provides
more in-depth and descriptive data which allows NHTSA to
quantify the relationships between the occupants and vehicles
in the real-world crash environment. The Committee directs
NHTSA to utilize the additional funds to expand the NASS
database with a particular focus on child safety seat and tire-
related data.
Biomechanical research.--The Committee provides a total of
$14,954,000 for biomechanics research which is $1,000,000 more
than the President's budget request. The Committee's
recommendation includes necessary resources for the continued
research of the Crash Injury Research and Engineering Network
program. In addition, within the funds provided, the Committee
includes $2,000,000 to continue research related to traumatic
brain and spinal cord injuries caused by motor vehicle,
motorcycle, and bicycle accidents at the Southern Consortium
for Injury Biomechanics.
Tire safety research.--The Committee recommendation
includes $375,000 in NHTSA's pneumatic tire research program
for the Mercer Engineering Research Center to initiate research
on the relationships between tire age, condition driven, load
and pressure and the effects on tire safety.
Built-in child restraints.--Section 13(h) of the TREAD Act
required NHTSA to conduct a study on the use and effectiveness
of automobile booster seats for children. To date, NHTSA has
yet to release this study which had a statutory deadline of
November 1st, 2001. The pending study is expected to compare
the safety benefits of existing booster systems to the safety
provided to children who are using lap and shoulder belts
alone. The Committee urges NHTSA to issue the results of the
booster seat study without delay, however, the Committee
believes that a review of integrated or built-in child
restraints is also warranted. The Committee provides $1,000,000
within NHTSA's safety systems research program to conduct an
evaluation of integrated or built-in child safety systems. The
evaluation should include the safety and correctness of fit for
the child; the availability of testing data on the system and
vehicle in which it will be used; compatibility with different
makes and models; cost-effectiveness in mass production for
consumers; ease of use and relative availability to children
riding in motor vehicles; and benefits of built-in seats to
increasing compliance with State child occupant restraint laws.
The Committee directs NHTSA to submit the results of this
supplementary study to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations by October 1, 2003.
Heavy vehicle research.--Within the funds provided for
heavy vehicle research, the Committee includes $1,000,000 for
the National Transportation Research Center in Tennessee to
continue to conduct broad-based laboratory-to-roadside research
into heavy vehicle safety issues.
national driver register
(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)
The National Driver Register (NDRS) is a central repository
of information on individuals whose licenses to operate a motor
vehicle have been revoked, suspended, canceled, or denied. The
NDR also contains information on persons who have been
convicted of serious traffic-related violations such as driving
while impaired by alcohol or other drugs. State driver
licensing officials query the NDR when individuals apply for a
license, for the purpose of determining whether driving
privileges have been withdrawn by other States. Other
organizations such as the Federal Aviation Administration and
the Federal Railroad Administration also use NDR license data
in hiring and certification decisions in overall U.S.
transportation operations.
The bill includes $2,000,000 for the NDR from the highway
trust fund.
In addition, the Committee reminds NHTSA that the direction
given to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
regarding the implementation of Section 204 of the Motor
Carrier Safety Improvement Act and the development of a one-
driver, one-record pointer system is equally applicable to
NHTSA. The Committee expects both agencies to work together on
these initiatives without further delay.
Highway Traffic Safety Grants
(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)
(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)
Appropriations, 2002.................................... $223,000,000
Budget estimate, 2003................................... 225,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 225,000,000
For fiscal year 2003 the Transportation Equity Act for the
21st Century authorized the following State grant programs:
Highway Safety Program, the Alcohol-Impaired Driving
Countermeasures Incentive Grant Program and the Occupant
Protection Incentive Grant Program. Under the Highway Safety
Program, grant allocations are determined on the basis of a
statutory formula established under 20 U.S.C. 402. Individual
States use this funding in national priority areas established
by Congress which have the greatest potential for achieving
safety improvements and reducing traffic crashes, fatalities,
and injuries. Also, the national occupant protection survey
shall be funded from within this amount. The Alcohol-Impaired
Driving Countermeasures Incentive Grant Program encourages
States to enact stiffer laws and implement stronger programs to
detect and remove impaired drivers from the roads. The occupant
protection program encourages States to promote and strengthen
occupant protection initiatives. The State Highway Safety Data
Grants Program encourages States to improve their collection
and dissemination of important highway safety data.
The Committee recommends an appropriation for liquidation
of contract authorization of $225,000,000 for the payment of
obligations incurred in carrying out provisions of these grant
programs.
The Committee has included a provision prohibiting the use
of section 402 funds for construction, rehabilitation or
remodeling costs, or for office furnishings and fixtures for
State, local, or private buildings or structures.
limitation on obligations
The bill includes language limiting the obligations to be
incurred under the various highway traffic safety grants
programs. Separate obligation limitations are included in the
bill with the following funding allocations:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 Fiscal year 2003 Committee
enacted estimate recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highway safety programs.................................... $160,000,000 $165,000,000 $165,000,000
Alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures grants............ 38,000,000 40,000,000 40,000,000
Occupant protection incentive grants....................... 15,000,000 20,000,000 20,000,000
State highway safety data grants........................... 10,000,000 ................ ...............
...........
----------------------------------------------------
Total................................................ 223,000,000 225,000,000 225,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BILL LANGUAGE
Public safety messages.--The bill contains a provision
(sec. 340) extending the authority for States to use traffic
safety grant funds under Section 402 to produce and place
highway safety public service messages in television, radio,
cinema, print media and on the Internet. This year, the
Committee continues a provision that was included in the fiscal
year 2002 bill which designated safety belt use innovative
grant funds to be used for public safety messages and
evaluation to support the Operation ABC (America Buckles up
Children) Mobilizations that are conducted each year in May and
November. Most of these funds were used to support State high-
visibility ``Click It or Ticket'' enforcement programs in May,
2002. The preliminary results from the May 2002 initiative show
continued success in achieving measurable increases in seat
belt use. The average percentage increase in seat belt use for
those States utilizing paid advertising in the May mobilization
initiative was 7.6 percent. Notwithstanding the
Administration's opposition to this initiative, the Committee
does commend the NHTSA Administrator for his leadership in this
program's successful execution.
The Committee believes that this program must be continued
and expanded in order to achieve its full potential in saving
lives and reducing injuries. Just as high visibility
enforcement programs have proven to be effective in increasing
seat belt use, research has also concluded that sobriety
checkpoints are highly effective in reducing alcohol-related
traffic fatalities and injuries. NHTSA's own survey has
indicated that 4 out of 5 Americans support increased
enforcement and tougher laws to protect themselves and their
families from impaired drivers. The Committee has included bill
language providing $20,000,000 from seat belt and impaired
driving grant programs to be used as directed by the NHTSA
Administrator for broadcast advertising to support national law
enforcement mobilizations aimed at increasing seat belt use and
controlling impaired driving. It is the Committee's intent that
these funds support at least two national mobilizations during
the year, and that NHTSA work on these initiatives with the
States and non-profit safety organizations that have been
active in conducting recent mobilizations. Further, the
Committee expects NHTSA to work with the States to ensure that
they have adequate resources for impaired driving enforcement
activities as part of the mobilizations.
FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION
Summary of Fiscal Year 2003 Program
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) became an
operating administration within the Department of
Transportation on April 1, 1967. It incorporated the Bureau of
Railroad Safety from the Interstate Commerce Commission, the
Office of High Speed Ground Transportation from the Department
of Commerce, and the Alaska Railroad from the Department of the
Interior. The Federal Railroad Administration is responsible
for planning, developing, and administering programs to achieve
safe operating and mechanical practices in the railroad
industry. Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation
(Amtrak) and other financial assistance programs to
rehabilitate and improve the railroad industry's physical
infrastructure are also administered by the Federal Railroad
Administration.
The Committee recommends $1,422,589,000 for the activities
of the Federal Railroad Administration for fiscal year 2003.
This is $711,324,000 more than the budget request.
The following table summarizes the Committee
recommendations:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------------ Committee
Program 2003 budget recommendation
2002 enacted estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safety and operations \1\ \2\ \3\......................... $110,857,000 $73,264,000 $118,264,000
New user fee revenue for safety and operations............ ................ 45,000,000 ................
Railroad research and development......................... 29,000,000 14,325,000 29,325,000
New user fee revenue for railroad research and development ................ 14,000,000 ................
Next generation high-speed rail........................... 32,300,000 23,200,000 30,000,000
Alaska railroad rehabilitation \4\........................ 20,000,000 ................ 25,000,000
Grants to National Railroad Passenger Corporation \5\..... 826,478,000 521,476,000 1,200,000,000
Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment Project................ 20,000,000 20,000,000 20,000,000
Amtrak Reform Council..................................... 225,000 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------
Total budgetary resources........................... 1,038,633,000 711,265,000 1,422,589,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not include reductions of $175,000 pursuant to section 349 of Public Law 107-87 and $150,000 pursuant
to section 1106 of Public Law 107-117 for fiscal year 2002.
\2\ Does not include supplemental funding of $6,000,000 pursuant to Public Law 107-117 for emergency expenses to
respond to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States.
\3\ Fiscal year 2003 budget estimate excludes $4,625,000 in CSRS retirement and FEHB accruals.
\4\ Fiscal year 2002 excludes $10,200,000 transferred from USAF.
\5\ Includes $100,000,000 from Public Law 107-117 and $205,000,000 from the 2002 Supplemental Appropriations Act
for further recovery from and response to terrorist Attacks on the United States.
Safety and Operations
Appropriations, 2002 \1\ \2\............................ $110,857,000
Budget estimate, 2003................................... 73,264,000
Committee recommendation................................ 118,264,000
\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $175,000 pursuant to section 349 of
Public Law 107-87 and $150,000 pursuant to section 1106 of Public Law
107-117.
\2\ Does not include supplemental funding of $6,000,000 pursuant to
Public Law 107-117 for emergency expenses to respond to the September
11, 2001, terrorist attack on the U.S.
The Safety and Operations account provides support for FRA
rail safety activities and all other administrative and
operating activities related to staff and programs.
Inspector workforce.--The Committee has approved the
President's request for 10 additional full time equivalent
(FTE) staff years and 20 additional positions which will bring
FRA's inspector workforce to a total of 444 FTEs. The Committee
includes $1,393,000 to fund 6 additional track inspector FTEs
and 4 additional operating practice inspector FTEs. Given the
recent increases in track-caused accidents and derailments as
well as human-factor caused accidents, the Committee urges FRA
to move rapidly to fill these positions.
Highway-railroad grade crossing safety.--The Committee
notes that the Department has either completed or made
substantial progress on most of the actions specified in its
strategic action plan to improve safety at highway-railroad
grade crossings. In view of the need to continue progress in
this area, the Committee directs the Secretary of
Transportation to submit with the fiscal year 2004 budget
request a new action plan outlining specific efforts to be
pursued by FRA, FHWA, FMCSA, NHTSA and the ITS Joint Program
Office to improve safety at both public and private crossings.
Positive train control.--The Committee agrees with the
National Transportation Safety Board that the current pace of
development and implementation of collision avoidance
technologies is inadequate. No plan for industry-wide
integration has been developed. Progress has been particularly
slow along rail lines that primarily serve freight carriers,
and even those lines with significant passenger traffic remain
largely unprotected today--some 12 years after positive train
control was first placed on the Safety Board's ``Most Wanted''
list. The Committee directs FRA to submit an updated economic
analysis of the costs and benefits of PTC and related systems
that takes into account advances in technology, and systems
savings to carriers and shippers as well as other cost savings
that might be realized by prioritized deployment of these
systems, especially along lines that might mix freight and
passenger trains. That analysis should be submitted as a letter
report to both the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations by October 1, 2003.
Safety assurance and compliance program (SACP).--In 1997,
FRA began the implementation of the Safety Assurance and
Compliance Program (SACP) which is a systems-based approach to
safety inspection and is designed to help maximize FRA's safety
inspection efforts. With over 220,000 miles of railroad
operated by the nation's Class I, regional and local freight
railroads, the Committee believes it is imperative that FRA
continue to utilize SACP as well as traditional methods of
inspection. The Committee directs FRA to provide a status
report by April 1, 2003 to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations which summarizes FRA's SACP activities in fiscal
year 2002 along with the agency's safety audit plans for fiscal
year 2003.
SAFETY AND OPERATIONS USER FEES
Appropriations, 2002....................................................
Budget estimate, 2003................................... ($45,000,000)
Committee recommendation................................................
User fees.--The Committee denies the Administration's
legislative proposal to impose safety user fees on FRA safety
and operations services.
Railroad Research and Development
Appropriations, 2002.................................... $29,000,000
Budget estimate, 2003................................... 14,325,000
Committee recommendation................................ 29,325,000
The Federal Railroad Administration's Railroad Research and
Development Program provides for research in the development of
safety and performance standards for high-speed rail and the
evaluation of their role in the Nation's transportation
infrastructure. The Committee recommends an appropriation of
$29,325,000 for railroad research and development, $15,000,000
more than the administration's requested level.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends the following funding levels for
the Railroad research and development programs:
Railroad System Issues.................................. $3,225,000
Human Factors........................................... 3,478,000
Rolling Stock and Components............................ 2,487,000
Track and Structures.................................... 5,225,000
Track and Train Interaction............................. 3,350,000
Train Control........................................... 1,250,000
Grade Crossings......................................... 1,435,000
Hazardous Materials Transportation...................... 1,000,000
Train Occupant Protection............................... 6,450,000
R&D Facilities and Test Equipment....................... 1,425,000
Track and Structures.--The Committee provides $5,225,000
for FRA's track and structures research efforts. Within the
funds provided, the Committee includes $1,000,000 to continue
the development of the Integrated Railway Remote Information
Service (InteRRIS) which is public-private demonstration
program which utilizes defect detectors across North America.
InteRRIS is an internet-based system designed to aggregate,
interrogate and store data from these field-deployed detector
systems. These additional funds will provide enhancements to
FRA's National Rail Corridor Car Performance Database to make
it web accessible and generate new queries to support any
analysis of the data for improving safety and predictive
maintenance. The Committee also includes $2,000,000 for
Marshall University and the University of Nebraska's
development and testing of a track stability data processing
and feedback system for track safety.
Freight congestion study.--The Committee is aware of
continued railroad-freight congestion issues in the Chicago,
Illinois region. It can take 2 days or more to move freight
through the region, often times at train speeds averaging
between 6.8 and 12 m.p.h. Blocked crossings also contribute to
this congestion. More than 37,500 rail freight cars move
through the region daily across nearly 2,000 at-grade railroad
crossings and to 26 intermodal yards. The Committee directs the
Federal Railroad Administrator to work with the Chicago
Transportation Coordination Office and communities in the
Chicago region, including the city of Chicago, to compile and
publish a periodic measure of the impact of rail operations in
the area. This shall also include the status of improvement
projects undertaken by the railroads to relieve congestion.
This information should translate operational reports to
reflect community impacts of blocked crossings and idling
locomotives/trains. These reports shall be submitted on a
quarterly basis. The administrator should also expand the
number of monitored crossings in the Chicago region to measure
the full extent of block railroad crossings, including using
event recorders and/or remote monitors to collect data
indicating the exact times grade crossing gates are closed and
the length of time they remain closed. The administrator should
report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations the
status of these efforts no later than 120 days after enactment.
RAILROAD RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT USER FEES
Appropriations, 2002....................................................
Budget estimate, 2003................................... ($14,000,000)
Committee recommendation................................................
User fees.--The Committee denies the Administration's
legislative proposal to impose user fees on FRA's railroad
research and development activities.
Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Program
Section 502 of Public Law 94-210, as amended authorizes
obligation guarantees for meeting the long-term capital needs
of private railroads. Railroads utilize this funding mechanism
to finance major new facilities and rehabilitation or
consolidation of current facilities. No appropriations or new
loan guarantee commitments are proposed in fiscal year 2003.
The Rail Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Program,
as established in section 7203 of the Transportation Equity Act
for the 21st Century [TEA21], will enable the Secretary of
Transportation to provide loans and loan guarantees to State
and local governments, Government-sponsored authorities and
corporations, railroads and joint ventures to acquire, improve,
or rehabilitate intermodal or rail equipment or facilities,
including track, bridges, yards, and shops.
Next Generation High-Speed Rail
Appropriations, 2002.................................... $32,200,000
Budget estimate, 2003................................... 23,200,000
Committee recommendation................................ 30,000,000
The Committee has provided $30,000,000 in general fund
appropriations for the High-Speed Ground Transportation [HSGT]
Program, $6,800,000 more than the President's budget request.
The Committee first provided funding for the Next
Generation High-Speed Rail [NGHSR] Program in fiscal year 1995.
The program funds high-speed rail research, development, and
technology programs that are aimed at demonstrations to foster
high-speed passenger service on rail corridors throughout the
country.
The Committee recommends the following funding levels for
the Next Generation High-Speed Rail Programs:
High-speed train control systems........................ $5,000,000
High-speed non-electric locomotives..................... 5,300,000
Grade crossing hazard mitigation/Low-cost innovative
technologies........................................ 3,900,000
Track and structures technology......................... 1,200,000
Corridor planning....................................... 9,100,000
Magnetic levitation..................................... 5,500,000
High-speed train control systems.--The Committee has
provided a total of $5,000,000 for the North American Joint PTC
project.
Grade crossing hazard mitigation/low-cost innovative
technologies.--The Committee recommends $3,900,000 for grade
crossing hazard mitigation and low-cost innovative technology
initiatives.
Within the funds provided, the Committee includes the
following allocations:
North Carolina Sealed Corridor Initiative............... $700,000
Illinois Rail-Grade crossing safety program............. 800,000
State of Vermont hazard elimination..................... 500,000
Corridor planning.--The Committee includes $9,100,000 for
passenger rail corridor planning. Within the funds provided,
the Committee includes the following allocations:
Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor, NC.................. $1,000,000
California high-speed rail.............................. 2,000,000
Florida high-speed rail................................. 3,850,000
Gulf Coast high-speed rail corridor..................... 800,000
Seattle-Everett corridor study.......................... 750,000
Las Vegas-Los Angeles high-speed study.................. 200,000
Northern New England corridor, VT....................... 500,000
Seattle-Everett, Washington Rail Corridor Study.--The
Committee provides $750,000 to conduct a corridor planning
study of track capacity and utilization by freight, commuter
and intercity rail services in the Seattle-Everett portion of
the Pacific Northwest High Speed Rail Corridor and the
environmental challenges that would accompany expansion of that
track capacity.
Las Vegas-Los Angeles study.--The Committee provides
$200,000 to conduct a rail capacity and ridership analysis for
high-speed rail service between Las Vegas and Los Angeles. The
study will assess existing capacity along the route; identify
potential improvements to increase capacity and reduce trip
times; conduct preliminary engineering and assess station
requirements.
Magnetic levitation transportation.--A total of $5,500,000
has been provided for magnetic levitation activities to be
distributed as follows:
Washington-Baltimore, MD: Environmental studies......... $500,000
Nevada-California: Environmental impact studies, design
and engineering..................................... 2,000,000
Greensburgh-Pittsburgh, PA: Environmental impact study.. 2,000,000
Southern California Maglev environmental study and
planning............................................ 1,000,000
Rail-highway crossing hazard eliminations.--Section 1103 of
the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21)
provides $5,250,000 for the elimination of rail-highway
crossing hazards. Of these set-aside funds, the following
allocations are made:
Gulf Coast high-speed rail corridor..................... $2,000,000
Chicago Hub high-speed rail corridor between Milwaukee
and LaCrosse, WI.................................... 500,000
Pacific Northwest high-speed rail corridor.............. 1,500,000
Alaska Railroad Rehabilitation
Appropriations, 2002 \1\................................ $20,000,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................................
Committee recommendation................................ 25,000,000
\1\ Excludes $10,200,000 transferred from USAF pursuant to section 8062
of Public Law 107-117.
The Committee has included a total of $25,000,000 for rail
safety and infrastructure improvements benefiting passenger
operations of the Alaska railroad. This railroad extends 498
miles from Seward through Anchorage, the largest city in
Alaska, to the city of Fairbanks, and east to the town of North
Pole and Eielson Air Force Base. It carries both passengers and
freight, and provides a critical transportation link for
passengers and cargo traveling through difficult terrain and
harsh climatic conditions.
Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)
Appropriations, 2002 \1\................................ $831,476,000
Budget estimate, 2003................................... 521,476,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,200,000,000
\1\ Includes supplemental funding of $105,000,000 pursuant to Public Law
107-117 and $205,000,000 pursuant to the Supplemental Appropriations Act
for Fiscal Year 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
For fiscal year 2003, the administration has requested an
appropriation of $521,476,000. The amount requested by the
administration is $310,000,000 or 37 percent less than the
amount appropriated to Amtrak for fiscal year 2002. Separately,
Amtrak's Board of Directors has submitted a budget request for
$1,200,000,000 for fiscal year 2003, an increase of
$368,524,000 or 44 percent more than the fiscal year 2002
comparable level.
In two separate hearings before the Committee, both
Amtrak's current and former Chief Executive Officer testified
that receiving a Federal appropriation at the level sought by
the administration for fiscal year 2003 will cause the railroad
to go bankrupt and terminate all rail service at the beginning
of the year. When invited to do so, both the Deputy Secretary
of Transportation and the Federal Railroad Administrator
declined to refute the observations of Amtrak's senior managers
on that question.
Status of authorizing legislation.--The Amtrak Reform and
Accountability Act of 1997 (ARAA), Public Law 105-134,
authorized annual appropriations totaling $5,200,000,000 over a
5 year period ending in fiscal year 2002. Amtrak received
approximately $2,230,000,000 of the $5,200,000,000 authorized
during that period.
Amtrak remains unauthorized for fiscal year 2003. However,
both the House authorizing subcommittee and the Senate
authorizing committee have reported reauthorization legislation
during this congressional session. The Senate committee's
reauthorization bill, which was ordered reported by the
Commerce Committee by a vote of 20 to 3, is currently pending
on the Senate calendar. For Amtrak, that bill authorizes a
total of $14,991,000,000 over 5 years including an
authorization of $3,930,000,000 for fiscal year 2003.
Shortly after the time when the Secretary of Transportation
joined the Amtrak Board of Directors, he publicly called on the
Congress to move out quickly and enact legislation
reauthorizing Amtrak. Now, some 13 months later, the Secretary
has yet to submit his own legislative proposal for Amtrak's
reauthorization. While the Secretary did make a speech on the
morning of June 20, 2002 outlining the ``principals'' governing
the administration's Amtrak policy, the only formal legislative
proposal submitted to Congress this year has been a proposal
for Amtrak to borrow an additional $170,000,000 against the
railroad's 2003 appropriation so that the company could
continue to operate through the remainder of fiscal year 2002.
The Congress rejected this proposal, choosing instead to
provide a supplemental appropriation of $205,000,000 to ensure
the continuation of Amtrak service without any further
borrowing against its fiscal year 2003 appropriation.
Transparency in Amtrak's Budget Process.--The Secretary and
other members of the administration have stated repeatedly that
greater transparency is needed in Amtrak's budgeting process.
The Committee wholeheartedly agrees and commends the Secretary
for his successful efforts in requiring Amtrak to provide all
relevant participants in the debate with accurate and timely
financial documentation. Similarly, the Committee commends
Amtrak's new leadership for its willingness to provide such
transparency in the development of the railroad's spending
plans.
In the interest of providing transparency to the
appropriations process for Amtrak, the Committee recommendation
provides with specificity the precise amounts appropriated for
Amtrak's operating losses, its capital expenses on the
Northeast Corridor Mainline and its capital expenses over the
rest of the Amtrak system. In recent years, the Committee
provided Amtrak's appropriation as a grant for capital expenses
only. This practice served to obfuscate the true amount of
Federal funding that was needed to cover Amtrak's operating
losses. For fiscal year 2003, the Committee provides
$550,000,000 for Amtrak's operating expenses including
$160,000,000 for Amtrak's mandated payments to the Railroad
Retirement system. The Committee also provides $369,000,000 for
capital expenses over Amtrak's Northeast Corridor Mainline and
$281,000,000 for capital expenses over Amtrak's national route
system excluding the Northeast Corridor Mainline.
Allocation of Committee Recommended Fiscal Year 2003 Appropriation
Operating expenses:
Excess RRTA......................................... $160,000,000
Operating loss...................................... 465,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Subtotal, Operating............................... 625,000,000
Required Savings.................................... (75,000,000)
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Subtotal, operating expenses with required savings 550,000,000
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Capital Expenses:
NEC Mainline........................................ 464,000,000
Required Savings--NEC Mainline...................... (95,000,000)
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Subtotal, NEC Mainline............................ 369,000,000
Other Corridors/Long-Distance....................... 355,000,000
Required Savings--Other Corridors/Long Distance..... (74,000,000)
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Subtotal, Other Corridors/Long Distance........... 281,000,000
Subtotal, Capital Expenses........................ 650,000,000
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Fiscal year 2003 Appropriation.................... 1,200,000,000
Requirement for operational savings and capital expense
reductions.--Based on Amtrak's current revenue and expense
projections, Amtrak could justify an overall Federal subsidy
requirement of $1,444,000,000 for fiscal year 2003. As
displayed above, with an appropriation of $1,200,000,000,
Amtrak's new management will be required to come up with
expense reductions to decrease its anticipated operating loss
by $75,000,000 in fiscal year 2003. In addition, capital
expense reductions of $95,000,000 will be required on the
Northeast Corridor and capital expense reductions of
$74,000,000 will be required across Amtrak's national system
excluding the Northeast Corridor in order to bring capital
spending in line with the recommended appropriation. Amtrak's
new management has signaled its determination to achieve these
savings while continuing to operate Amtrak's entire national
network.
Contributors to Amtrak's near term financial crises.--There
are a great many factors that have contributed to Amtrak's near
term financial crises. One that is particularly pertinent to
the requirement for an increased appropriation for fiscal year
2003 is the uneven pattern of Federal support that Amtrak has
experienced over the last several years. The Taxpayer Relief
Act, which was signed into law on August 5, 1997, included tax
carry-back provisions that effectively made Amtrak eligible for
a tax return totaling $2,323,000,000. That Federal funding
allowed Amtrak to make dramatically increased capital
expenditures, especially in the Northeast Corridor. It also
served as a source of funding from which Amtrak borrowed from
time to time to cover operating shortfalls. This one-time
infusion of funding through tax legislation prompted Amtrak to
embark on a spending pattern that would be unsustainable over
the long term. The railroad has now reached the point where
effectively all of the funding provided through the Taxpayer
Relief Act has been spent and is, therefore, no longer
available to cover core elements of Amtrak's cost structure.
Complicating this problem further was a change made in the
timing in which annually appropriated funding was made
available to Amtrak. The present administration's budget
request for fiscal year 2002 abandoned the convention whereby
Amtrak did not get its annual appropriation until the very end
of the fiscal year. The Congress acquiesced to this request in
the Transportation Appropriations Act for that year. As a
result, Amtrak, in fiscal year 2002, simultaneously had access
to most of its 2001 appropriation which carried over into 2002
as well as all of its 2002 appropriation. As such, heading into
fiscal year 2003, approval of the administration's proposed
freeze on Amtrak spending at the 2002 level would actually
represent a dramatic cut in available Federal resources to
Amtrak. The table below displays the annual appropriation for
each fiscal year opposite the actual amount of Federal funding
spent by Amtrak in each year from all Federal sources including
the Taxpayer Relief Act.
CASH CONSUMPTION FROM ALL FEDERAL SOURCES VERSUS ANNUAL APPROPRIATION
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Projected recommendation
2002 2003
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Spending--Operating........ 406.1 344.0 484.0 362.0 242.0 445.0 550.0
Federal Spending--Capital.......... 600.0 1,220.4 597.1 971.9 331.1 673.6 650.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Spending--Total...... 1,006.1 1,564.4 1,081.1 1,333.9 573.1 1,118.0 1,200.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Appropriation............... 842.5 594.0 609.2 571.0 521.0 831.0 1,200.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amtrak's debt burden.--Adding to Amtrak's financial
difficulties has been the increasingly punishing debt burden
that the railroad has taken on in just the last few years. The
requirement to recapitalize its resources has prompted the
railroad to finance an increasing amount of its capital
improvements using a variety of debt instruments. Moreover,
Amtrak's false belief that launching the new Acela service
would greatly benefit the company's bottom line prompted the
company to finance major elements of that project so as to
implement high-speed rail service as soon as possible. Finally,
Amtrak's periodic cash emergencies have prompted the
corporation to engage in a number of short-term financial
transactions to free up cash that added to the company's debt
burden, but kept the company out of bankruptcy. These
transactions, which in many instances required the Secretary's
approval, included the mortgaging of portions of Pennsylvania
Station in New York City. The table below displays the history
of Amtrak's debt burden over the last 5 years.
Source: DOT Inspector General.
Amtrak's annual debt service payments are expected to reach
$175,000,000 in fiscal year 2003--an increase of more than 150
percent from the level just 5 years earlier. Amtrak's growing
debt burden was the principal reason why the Committee rejected
the administration's proposed legislation to saddle the company
with still more debt to stay solvent through fiscal year 2002.
The Committee instead provided a cash grant sufficient to cover
Amtrak's remaining operating shortfall for the year. Given the
size of Amtrak's debt burden, the Committee is puzzled by the
administration's stated proposal to spin off some parts of
Amtrak's operations to private vendors. The Committee hopes
that any future administration testimony on behalf of this
proposal will include a cogent explanation as to who will
assume the company's debts when portions of the company are
``spun off'' or ``privatized.''
Viability of Amtrak routes.--Much of the debate surrounding
the appropriate Federal role in subsidizing Amtrak has centered
around the viability of Amtrak's existing route structure. On
March 7, 2002, the Committee held a hearing with the Deputy
Secretary of Transportation, the then-President of Amtrak and
the DOT Inspector General. As part of that hearing, Inspector
General Kenneth M. Mead made the following observation:
Some have suggested that Amtrak's financial woes
would go away if you would cut out the trains outside
the Northeast Corridor. That is not true. In fact, the
annual net operating subsidy that is required to
continue Amtrak's most unprofitable trains is less than
one-third of the annual capital subsidy that is
required to operate the most profitable trains in the
Northeast Corridor.
A review of Amtrak's own financial data indicates that the
Inspector General is entirely correct except for his
representation that certain Northeast Corridor trains are
``profitable.'' As demonstrated below, whether evaluated on a
profit and loss (P&L) basis using GAAP accounting or just on a
net contribution basis excluding depreciation, Northeast
Corridor service is not expected to come close to making a
profit in 2003 just as it hasn't made a profit in any previous
year.
Northeast Corridor Contribution Analysis
Fiscal year 2003
Profit and loss basis:
Total Revenue....................................... $845,000,000
Total Expense (excl. Depreciation).................. 843,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Net Operating Contribution before Depreciation.... 2,000,000
Depreciation........................................ (330,000,000)
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Net loss.......................................... (328,000,000)
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Contribution (Non P&L Basis)
Operating Contribution.............................. 2,000,000
Capital Funding Required............................ (369,000,000)
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Net Contribution Requirement...................... (367,000,000)
As the Secretary has stated on a number of occasions, the
Northeast Corridor has a critical maintenance backlog of
between $5,000,000,000 and $6,000,000,000. While there is a
mounting backlog of maintenance needs across the rest of the
Amtrak system, these needs do not begin to approach even a
fifth of the needs along the Northeast Corridor. As such, the
Committee does not believe that Amtrak's Northeast Corridor
service is any more ``financially viable'' than the rest of the
Amtrak network, given both the short term and long term capital
needs of that Corridor.
Proposals to shrink Amtrak into financial health ignore the
comparatively small burden that Amtrak's long distance trains
place on the company's budget. Amtrak has performed a financial
analysis of the savings associated with eliminating 18 of its
long distance trains. Within the first year, such a policy,
which would eliminate Amtrak service in 24 States, would yield
effectively zero savings in the first year. In the second year,
savings in Amtrak's operating budget would approach only
$18,000,000. Only after 5 years would the elimination of these
services yield annual operating savings exceeding
$200,000,000--an amount that will not even cover Amtrak's
anticipated debt service payments for that year. And such
savings does not represent even 5 percent of the identified
capital backlog in the Northeast Corridor. This analysis
prompts the Committee to reject the notion that Amtrak can
shrink its way to financial health.
Administration's proposed reforms.--As stated earlier,
despite the fact that Amtrak's authorization will expire in
just a few weeks time, the administration has yet to submit a
reauthorization proposal embodying the ``reforms'' that the
Secretary discussed in his speech of June 20, 2002. Even so,
the Committee has some concerns regarding his proposals in the
face of his budget request for 2003.
The administration has stated its belief that the States
should be required to shoulder a larger portion of the costs of
Amtrak service. The Committee is well aware that there are
currently gross inequities between the States when it comes to
State subsidization of Amtrak service. While the Committee
believes that initiatives to eliminate these inequities have
merit, the Committee does not believe that States are in a
position to absorb the cost of Amtrak service overnight.
Unfortunately, should the administration's budget request for
Amtrak be enacted, such an immediate assumption of Amtrak's
costs, if it could even be executed, would be the only way that
the railroad might avoid almost immediate bankruptcy.
Recently, the National Governors Association reported that
the States are wrestling with eliminating anticipated State
deficits that could exceed $40,000,000,000 in the coming fiscal
year. Their financial predicament has not been helped any by
the administration's proposal to reduce Federal highway funding
to the States by $8,600,000,000 in that year. The Committee
believes that a more fruitful dialogue over the appropriate
role for States in financing Amtrak service could take place if
the administration were to submit a realistic budget request
that would allow those States that are able to increase their
contribution incrementally and over time. Such a dialogue
should also recognize that certain States enjoy far better
Amtrak service than others and that all States contribute
toward the Federal subsidy to Amtrak and, thus, are deserving
of some level of intercity rail passenger service. Certain
States that face particularly difficult financial conditions
may never be able to increase their contribution.
AMTRAK REFORM COUNCIL
Appropriations, 2002 \1\................................ $225,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................................
Committee recommendation................................................
\1\ The Council is an independent entity. Its funding is presented
within the FRA for display purposes only.
The Committee has not provided funding for the Amtrak
Reform Council as the Council has now issued its final report
and completed its work.
PENNSYLVANIA STATION REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Appropriations, 2002.................................... $20,000,000
Budget estimate, 2003................................... 20,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 20,000,000
In 2000, an advance appropriation of $20,000,000 was
provided for each fiscal year 2001, 2002, and 2003. These funds
support the redevelopment of the Pennsylvania Station in New
York City, including the renovation of the James A. Farley Post
Office building as a train station and commercial center, and
basic upgrades to Pennsylvania Station.
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION
Summary of Fiscal Year 2003 Program
The Federal Transit Administration was established as a
component of the Department of Transportation by Reorganization
Plan No. 2 of 1968, effective July 1, 1968, which transferred
most of the functions and programs under the Federal Transit
Act of 1964, as amended (78 Stat. 302; 49 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.),
from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The
missions of the Federal Transit Administration are: to assist
in the development of improved mass transportation facilities,
equipment, techniques, and methods; to encourage the planning
and establishment of urban and rural transportation services
needed for economical and desirable development; to provide
mobility for transit dependents in both metropolitan and rural
areas; to maximize productivity of transportation systems; and
to provide assistance to State and local governments and their
instrumentalities in financing such services and systems.
The current authorization for the programs funded by the
Federal Transit Administration is contained in the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century.
Under the Committee recommendation, a total program level
of $7,326,000,000 would be provided for the programs of the
Federal Transit Administration for fiscal year 2003, which is
$100,000,000 more than the obligation limitation authorized
under the mass transit category in TEA21. This funding is
comprised of $1,545,000,000 in direct appropriations of general
funds and $5,781,000,000 in limitations on contract authority.
The following table summarizes the Committee's
recommendations compared to fiscal year 2002 and the
administration's request:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
Program 2002 enacted 2003 estimate \1\ recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative expenses................................ 67,000 73,000 73,000
Formula grants \2\ \3\................................. 3,542,000 3,839,000 3,839,000
University transportation research..................... 6,000 6,000 6,000
Transit planning and research.......................... 116,000 122,000 122,000
Capital investment grants \3\ \4\...................... 2,891,000 3,036,000 3,136,000
Job access and reverse commute grants.................. 125,000 150,000 150,000
--------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................ 6,747,000 7,226,000 7,326,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes $3,586,000 in CSRS/FEHB accruals.
\2\ Excludes $23,500,000 in Emergency supplemental funding provided pursuant to Public Law 107-117.
\3\ Fiscal year 2002 reflects transfer of $50,000,000 from Formula grants to Capital investment grants.
\4\ Excludes $100,000,000 in Emergency supplemental funding provided pursuant to Public Law 107-117.
Administrative Expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General fund Trust fund
Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2002.................................... $13,400,000 $53,600,000 $67,000,000
Budget estimate, 2003 \1\............................... 14,600,000 58,400,000 73,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 14,600,000 58,400,000 73,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes $3,586,000 in CSRS/FEHB accruals.
The Committee recommends a total of $73,000,000 in budget
resources funds for administrative expenses.
Formula Grants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General fund Trust fund Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2002 \1\ \2\.............................. $668,400,000 $2,873,600,000 $3,542,000,000
Budget estimate, 2003..................................... 767,800,000 3,071,200,000 3,839,000,000
Committee recommendation.................................. 767,800,000 3,071,200,000 3,839,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reflects $50,000,000 transferred to capital investment grants pursuant to Public Law 107-87 and excludes
$23,500,000 in Emergency Supplemental funding provided pursuant to Public Law 107-117.
\2\ Fiscal year 2002 does not reflect FHWA flex funding transferred to FTA.
Formula grants to States and local agencies funded under
this heading fall into four categories: urbanized area formula
grants (U.S.C. sec. 5307); clean fuels formula grants (U.S.C.
sec. 5308); formula grants and loans for special needs of
elderly individuals and individuals with disabilities (U.S.C.
sec. 5310); and formula grants for non-urbanized areas (U.S.C.
sec. 5311). In addition, setasides of formula funds are
directed to: a grant program for intercity bus operators to
finance Americans with Disabilities Act [ADA] accessibility
costs; and the Alaska Railroad for improvements to its
passenger operations.
Within the total funding level of $3,839,000,000 for fiscal
year 2003, the statutory distribution of these formula grants
is allocated among these categories as follows:
Urbanized areas (sec. 5307)............................. $3,445,939,606
Clean fuels (sec. 5308)................................. 50,000,000
Elderly and disabled (sec. 5310)........................ 90,652,801
Nonurbanized areas (sec. 5311).......................... 240,607,643
Over-the-Road Bus Program............................... 6,950,000
Alaska railroad......................................... 4,849,950
Section 3007 of TEA21 amends U.S.C. 5307, urbanized formula
grants, by striking the authorization to utilize these funds
for operating costs, but includes a specific provision allowing
the Secretary to make operating grants to urbanized areas with
a population of less than 200,000. Generally, urbanized formula
grants may be used to fund capital projects, and to finance
planning and improvement costs of equipment, facilities, and
associated capital maintenance used in mass transportation. All
urbanized areas greater than 200,000 in population are
statutorily required to use 1 percent of their annual formula
grants on enhancements, which include landscaping, public art,
bicycle storage, and connections to parks.
Clean fuels program.--The Transportation Equity Act for the
21st Century requires that $50,000,000 be set-aside from funds
made available under the formula grants program to fund the
clean fuels program. The clean fuels program is supplemented by
an additional set-aside from the major capital investment's bus
program and provides grants for the purchase or lease of clean
fuel buses for eligible recipients in areas that are not in
compliance with air quality attainment standards. The Committee
has included bill language transferring the clean fuel formula
set-aside funds to the capital investment grants account. The
Committee has identified designated recipients of these funds
within the projects listed under the bus program of the capital
investment grants account.
The following table displays the State-by-State
distribution of the formula program funds within each of the
program categories:
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION, FISCAL YEAR 2003 GUARANTEED LEVEL APPORTIONMENT FOR FORMULA PROGRAMS (BY STATE)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 5310
Section 5307 Section 5311 elderly and Total formula
State urbanized area nonurbanized persons with programs
area disabilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama........................................ $14,927,927 $6,693,617 $1,582,925 $23,204,469
Alaska......................................... \1\ 8,546,214 932,932 240,303 9,719,449
American Samoa................................. .............. 153,033 60,088 213,121
Arizona........................................ 44,214,267 3,265,400 1,652,847 49,132,514
Arkansas....................................... 8,076,720 4,841,871 1,029,871 13,948,462
California..................................... 583,841,997 10,475,294 9,488,919 603,806,210
Colorado....................................... 46,448,166 2,907,313 1,160,010 50,515,489
Connecticut.................................... 46,629,133 1,488,013 1,128,644 49,245,790
Delaware....................................... 6,342,133 674,647 352,994 7,369,774
District of Columbia........................... 66,802,132 .............. 309,042 67,111,174
Florida........................................ 158,320,783 6,710,664 6,064,881 171,096,328
Georgia........................................ 63,237,705 8,484,475 2,295,637 74,017,817
Guam........................................... 1,359,878 60,272 157,227 1,577,377
Hawaii......................................... 26,885,021 1,003,351 476,147 28,364,519
Idaho.......................................... 5,731,779 1,843,482 455,768 8,031,029
Illinois....................................... 220,316,888 7,163,547 3,526,256 231,006,691
Indiana........................................ 36,011,838 7,130,780 1,871,517 45,014,135
Iowa........................................... 12,875,848 4,838,882 980,862 18,695,592
Kansas......................................... 9,613,682 3,954,869 882,653 14,451,204
Kentucky....................................... 19,550,450 6,611,124 1,461,839 27,623,413
Louisiana...................................... 31,467,926 5,164,303 1,455,553 38,087,782
Maine.......................................... 3,062,068 2,566,899 533,084 6,162,051
Maryland....................................... 69,014,462 2,800,694 1,545,478 73,360,634
Massachusetts.................................. 127,232,927 1,907,117 2,041,414 131,181,458
Michigan....................................... 68,303,580 8,975,050 2,938,848 80,217,478
Minnesota...................................... 42,155,128 5,897,179 1,366,007 49,418,314
Mississippi.................................... 5,276,443 5,782,322 1,032,720 12,091,485
Missouri....................................... 36,804,592 6,690,078 1,788,808 45,283,478
Montana........................................ 2,581,607 1,784,329 384,485 4,750,421
N. Mariana Islands............................. 676,035 20,103 60,998 757,136
Nebraska....................................... 8,374,720 2,420,469 596,510 11,391,699
Nevada......................................... 24,300,864 859,972 721,940 25,882,776
New Hampshire.................................. 4,650,337 1,826,955 457,852 6,935,144
New Jersey..................................... 216,873,343 1,764,450 2,587,773 221,225,566
New Mexico..................................... 9,107,633 2,555,496 655,206 12,318,335
New York....................................... 548,839,731 9,273,805 6,091,120 564,204,656
North Carolina................................. 37,223,366 11,455,078 2,563,722 51,242,166
North Dakota................................... 3,056,087 1,098,920 310,725 4,465,732
Ohio........................................... 91,723,614 10,796,386 3,431,195 105,951,195
Oklahoma....................................... 13,978,521 5,254,198 1,208,398 20,441,117
Oregon......................................... 36,021,230 3,860,548 1,122,512 41,004,290
Pennsylvania................................... 155,123,266 10,871,771 4,044,433 170,039,470
Puerto Rico.................................... 44,710,018 886,606 1,399,708 46,996,332
Rhode Island................................... 8,295,427 321,072 463,004 9,079,503
South Carolina................................. 14,169,630 5,711,432 1,383,261 21,264,323
South Dakota................................... 2,348,155 1,496,539 339,305 4,183,999
Tennessee...................................... 28,761,361 7,277,715 1,914,830 37,953,906
Texas.......................................... 194,268,566 16,176,384 5,644,548 216,089,498
Utah........................................... 27,314,937 1,295,746 592,321 29,203,004
Vermont........................................ 1,043,904 1,344,823 294,426 2,683,153
Virgin Islands................................. .............. 290,119 150,772 440,891
Virginia....................................... 54,257,001 6,317,842 2,017,699 62,592,542
Washington..................................... 95,180,075 4,247,980 1,720,930 101,148,985
West Virginia.................................. 4,929,603 3,461,591 784,330 9,175,524
Wisconsin...................................... 41,295,126 6,734,456 1,574,405 49,603,987
Wyoming........................................ 1,381,764 982,612 256,054 2,620,430
----------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................. 3,433,535,608 239,404,605 90,652,801 3,763,593,014
Oversight...................................... 17,253,948 1,203,038 .............. 18,456,986
----------------------------------------------------------------
Total.......................................... 3,450,789,556 240,607,643 90,652,801 3,782,050,000
================================================================
Clean Fuels.................................... .............. .............. .............. 50,000,000
Over-the-Road Bus Accessibility................ .............. .............. .............. 6,950,000
----------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Total.............................. .............. .............. .............. 3,839,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $4,849,950 for the Alaska Railroad improvements to passenger operations.
Over-the-road buses.--The Committee has included $6,950,000
in fiscal year 2003 for the over-the-road accessibility
program. These funds are intended to assist over-the-road bus
operators in complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act
accessibility requirements.
University Transportation Research
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General fund Trust fund Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2002............................................ $1,200,000 $4,800,000 $6,000,000
Budget estimate, 2003........................................... 1,200,000 4,800,000 6,000,000
Committee recommendation........................................ 1,200,000 4,800,000 6,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 5505 of TEA21 provides authorization for the
university transportation research program. The purpose of the
university transportation research program is to become a
national resource and focal point for the support and conduct
of research and training concerning the transportation of
passengers and property. Funds provided under the FTA
university transportation research program are transferred to
and managed by the Research and Special Programs Administration
(RSPA), combined with a transfer from the Federal Highway
Administration of $26,500,000.
The Committee action provides $6,000,000 for the university
transportation research program, the same level as provided in
fiscal year 2002.
Transit Planning and Research
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General fund Trust fund Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2002 \1\........................................ $23,000,000 $93,000,000 $116,000,000
Budget estimate, 2003........................................... 24,200,000 97,800,000 122,000,000
Committee recommendation........................................ 24,200,000 97,800,000 122,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not reflect FHWA flex funding transferred to FTA.
The Committee action provides $122,000,000 for transit
planning and research. The bill contains language specifying
that $60,385,600 shall be available for the metropolitan
planning program; $5,250,000 for the rural transit assistance
program; $31,500,000 for the national planning and research
program; $12,614,400 for the State planning and research
program; $8,250,000 for transit cooperative research; and
$4,000,000 for the National Transit Institute at Rutgers
University.
The following table summarizes the Committee
recommendation:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------- Committee
2002 program 2003 budget recommendation
level \1\ estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan planning....... $55,422,400 $60,385,600 $60,385,600
Rural transit assistance 5,250,000 5,250,000 5,250,000
program....................
State planning and research 11,577,600 12,614,400 12,614,400
program....................
Transit cooperative research 8,250,000 8,250,000 8,250,000
program....................
National Transit Institute.. 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000
National planning and 31,500,000 31,500,000 31,500,000
research program...........
-------------------------------------------
Total................. 116,000,000 122,000,000 122,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fiscal year 2002 does not reflect FHWA flex funding transferred to
FTA.
NATIONAL PLANNING AND RESEARCH PROGRAM
The Committee recommendation includes transit planning and
research grants from the national program for:
Project Amount
Auburn University Compus Transit System, AL............. $375,000
Center for Composites Manufacturing, AL................. 1,000,000
Detroit Airport Rail Project, MI........................ 200,000
Detroit Area Regional Transportation Authority Studies,
MI.................................................. 750,000
Electric Transit Vehicle Institute, TN.................. 500,000
I-93 Corridor Transit Investment Study, NH.............. 1,000,000
National Bio-terrorism Civilian Medical Response Center,
PA.................................................. 1,000,000
National Deployment of the ITN America, ME.............. 500,000
NDSU Transit Center for Small Urban Areas, ND........... 400,000
Rich Passage Passenger Ferry Project, WA................ 1,000,000
Rockford-Belvidere, Transit Feasibility Study, IL....... 250,000
Transit Usage, Home Interview Survey Study, UT.......... 500,000
Washington State Ferries Wireless Connection Project, WA 1,000,000
WVU Exhaust Emmissions Testing, WV...................... 1,400,000
Zinc-air Zero emmissions bus, NV........................ 1,500,000
Project ACTION.......................................... 3,000,000
Trust Fund Share of Expenses
(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)
(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)
Appropriations, 2002....................................($5,398,000,000)
Budget estimate, 2003................................... (5,781,000,000)
Committee recommendation................................ 5,781,000,000
For fiscal year 2003, the Committee has provided
$5,781,000,000 in liquidating cash for the trust fund share of
transit expenses associated with the following programs:
administrative expenses, formula grants, university
transportation research, transit planning and research, job
access and reverse commute grants, and capital investment
grants. This level of funds is equal to the total budget
authority from the highway trust fund inside the transit
firewall as outlined in the transportation discretionary
spending guarantee subtitle of the Transportation Equity Act
for the 21st Century.
Capital Investment Grants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General funds Trust funds Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2002 \1\..................................... $618,200,000 $2,272,800,000 $2,891,000,000
Budget estimate, 2003........................................ 607,200,000 2,428,800,000 3,036,000,000
Committee recommendation..................................... 707,200,000 2,428,800,000 3,136,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $50,000,000 transferred from formula grants pursuant to Public Law 107-87 and excludes $100,000,000
in Emergency supplemental funding provided pursuant to Public Law 107-117.
Section 5309 of 49 U.S.C. authorizes discretionary grants
or loans to States and local public bodies and agencies thereof
to be used in financing mass transportation investments.
Investments may include construction of new fixed guideway
systems and extensions to existing guideway systems; major bus
fleet expansions and bus facility construction; and fixed
guideway expenditures for existing systems.
The Committee action provides a level of $3,136,000,000.
Within this total, $2,428,800,000 is from the ``Mass transit''
account of the highway trust fund, and no more than
$707,200,000 shall be appropriated from general funds. The
following table summarizes the Committee recommendations:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
2002 program 2003 budget Committee
level estimate recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bus and bus facilities.......................................... $618,200,000 $607,200,000 $607,200,000
Fixed guideway modernization.................................... 1,136,400,000 1,214,400,000 1,214,400,000
New systems and new extensions.................................. 1,136,400,000 1,214,400,000 1,314,400,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 2,891,000,000 3,036,000,000 3,136,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limited extensions of discretionary funds.--There have been
occasions when the Committee has extended the availability of
capital investment funds. These extensions are granted on a
case by case basis and, in nearly all instances, are due to
circumstances that were unforeseen by the project's sponsor.
The availability of these particular funds are intended for one
additional year, absent further congressional direction. The
Committee directs the FTA not to reallocate funds provided in
fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 for the following
projects:
--Santa Fe/El Dorado, New Mexico rail link project
--Albuquerque, New Mexico light rail project
--Tuscaloosa, Alabama intermodal center
--Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee, Wisconsin rail extension project
--Northern New Mexico park and ride facilities and State of
New Mexico, Buses and Bus-Related Facilities
--Birmingham, Alabama transit corridor project
--Harrisburg, Pennsylvania-Capital Area Transit/Corridor One
commuter rail project
--Charleston, South Carolina monobeam corridor project
--King County, Washington park and ride expansion
--Sequim, Washington--Clallam Transit multimodal center
--Birmingham-Jefferson County, Alabama buses
--Roaring Fork Transportation Authority, CO
--Dothan Wiregrass, Alabama vehicles and transit facility
--Jefferson/Montevallo, Alabama pedestrian walkway
--Montgomery, Alabama Union Station intermodal center
--Pritchard, Alabama bus transfer center
--West Virginia statewide intermodal facility and buses
Bill language.--The bill contains a general provision (sec.
322) reprogramming funds provided in previous fiscal years for
the following project:
--Wilmington, Delaware downtown transit connector (fiscal
year 2000 and fiscal year 2001)--to be made available
for Wilmington, Delaware commuter rail improvements.
The Committee has also included a general provision (sec. 337)
permitting urbanized areas that grew from less than 200,000
people to more than 200,000 people as a result of the 2000
census to use an amount of Federal transit funds equal to the
amount they were allowed to use for operating purposes in
fiscal year 2002. The provision also permits areas that were
merged into a larger urbanized area as a result of the 2000
census to use Federal transit funds for operating purposes
equal to the amount in fiscal year 2002. The Committee is
including this provision for fiscal year 2003 only in order to
give the authorizing committees time to address this issue in
surface transportation reauthorization legislation next year.
BUS AND BUS FACILITIES
The Committee recommendation for bus and bus facilities
funding is $657,200,000. These funds may be used to replace,
rehabilitate, and purchase buses and related equipment and to
construct bus-related facilities. Funds for bus and bus
facilities shall be distributed as follows:
Project Amount
AC Transit Buses and Bus Facilities, CA................. $1,000,000
Adams Transit Authority Facility, PA.................... 400,000
Ajo to Phoenix Bus Service, AZ.......................... 200,000
Alabama A&M University bus & bus facilities, AL......... 500,000
Alabama State Docks Intermodal Facility, AL............. 10,000,000
Alabama Statewide Bus Facilities and Ancillary
Equipment, AL....................................... 3,000,000
Alabama Statewide Replacement of Senior Center Vans, AL. 4,500,000
Albuquerque, NM bus and bus facilities.................. 300,000
Allegheny Port Authority Buses, PA...................... 1,000,000
Allentown Intermodal Transportation Center, PA.......... 3,000,000
Altoona Metro Transit buses, PA......................... 500,000
Anchorage Int'l Airport Intermodal Facility, AK......... 2,000,000
Anchorage Transfer Facility, AK......................... 3,000,000
Ann Arbor Transportation Authority Bus & Bus Facilities,
MI.................................................. 3,000,000
Area Transportation Authority Buses, North Central PA... 3,000,000
Area VII Agency on Aging Bus and Bus Facility, MT....... 1,000,000
Arkansas Statewide, AR.................................. 10,000,000
Attleboro Intermodal Facility, MA....................... 750,000
Aurora Avenue Bus Rapid Transit, WA..................... 2,000,000
Austin Bus Projects, TX................................. 8,000,000
Bay Area Transportation Authority Buses, Traverse City,
MI.................................................. 1,000,000
Beaumont buses, TX...................................... 300,000
Beaver County Transit Authority, Buses, PA.............. 500,000
Bergen County Intermodal Park-n-Ride & Facilities, NJ... 1,750,000
Berks Area Reading Transportation Buses, PA............. 1,000,000
Bi-State Development Agency Bus Replacement, MO......... 3,000,000
Blue Water Area Transit bus facility, Port Huron MI..... 2,000,000
Bridgeport High Speed Ferry Terminal Project, CT........ 2,000,000
Brockton Intermodal Transportation Center, MA........... 1,500,000
Brookhaven Multi-Modal Transportation Center, MS........ 2,000,000
Broward County Buses and Bus Facility, FL............... 2,000,000
Brownsville buses, TX................................... 300,000
BRT Systems, Appurtenances & Facilities, HI............. 11,000,000
Buffalo Auditorium Intermodal Center, NY................ 5,000,000
Burien transit center, transit oriented development, WA. 2,000,000
Bus Rapid Transit Project, Las Vegas Blvd., NV.......... 5,000,000
Capital Area Transist buses, PA......................... 500,000
Capital Area Transportation Authority (CATA), Lansing ,
MI.................................................. 3,000,000
Cedar Falls, Multimodal Facility, IA.................... 1,100,000
Cherry Street Multimodal Facility, IN................... 1,300,000
Chittenden County Transit Authority Bus and Facility, VT 4,000,000
Cincinnati Government Square Transit Transfer Center, OH 6,400,000
Coffman-Cove Inner-island Ferry/Bus Terminal, AK........ 2,000,000
Colorado Statewide, CO.................................. 9,000,000
Connecticut State-wide Buses, CT........................ 3,000,000
C-Tran, Vancouver Mall transit center, WA............... 2,700,000
Delaware Statewide Buses................................ 3,250,000
East Central Florida Transit Coalition, Bus and
Facilities, FL...................................... 11,000,000
East Palo Alto Buses, CA................................ 400,000
Easton Intermodal Terminal, PA.......................... 2,000,000
Edmonds Crossing multi-modal project, WA................ 4,000,000
El Paso Bus Projects, TX................................ 4,000,000
Espanola ADA van & Compressed Gas Equipment, NM......... 75,000
Fairbanks Intermodal Facility, AK....................... 250,000
Fairbanks Rail/Bus Transfer Facility, AK................ 2,000,000
Ferguson van replacement, MO............................ 45,000
Flint Mass Transportation Authority bus and bus
facilities, MI...................................... 3,750,000
Fort Smith Bus, AR...................................... 1,500,000
Fresno Buses, CA........................................ 600,000
Fort Worth buses, TX.................................... 500,000
Galveston Buses, TX..................................... 2,000,000
Gardena Municipal Bus Lines, CA......................... 350,000
Georgia Statewide, Bus Replacement Program.............. 1,500,000
Gloucester Co Sr. Buses, NJ............................. 350,000
Greater Minnesota Transit Authority Bus & Bus
Facilities, MN...................................... 9,500,000
Greater Triskett Bus Garage Rehabilitation, OH.......... 3,000,000
GRTA Express Bus & Facility, GA......................... 8,000,000
Hampton Roads Transit Facility Replacement, VA.......... 4,000,000
Hartford Downtown Circulator, CT........................ 2,800,000
Hartford-New Britain Busway Project, CT................. 14,000,000
Hattiesburg Intermodal Facility, MS..................... 3,500,000
Hawaii Statewide Bus and Bus Facilities, HI............. 6,000,000
Hazelwood van expansion, MO............................. 80,000
Henderson County Facility, KY........................... 2,000,000
Hershey Intermodal Transportation Center, PA............ 2,000,000
Hoover & Vestavia Hills Diesel Hybrid Electric Buses, AL 1,000,000
Houston buses, MO....................................... 100,000
Huntsville Int'l Airport Intermodal Center Phase III, AL 3,000,000
Idaho Transit Coalition Bus and Bus Facilities.......... 2,500,000
Illinois Statewide, IL.................................. 10,000,000
Indiana Transit Consortium.............................. 2,000,000
Indianapolis Downtown Transit Center, IN................ 4,500,000
Intermodal/Inland Port Terminal, SC..................... 5,000,000
Iowa City Intermodal Transit Facility, IA............... 8,000,000
Iowa Statewide.......................................... 6,500,000
Jackson Transportation Authority Bus Facility, MI....... 500,000
Jamaica Intermodal Facilities, NY....................... 3,000,000
Jefferson City Transit bus and van, MO.................. 2,000,000
Johnson County Transit Programs, KS..................... 500,000
Kalamazoo Transportation Center, MI..................... 2,900,000
Kansas City KCATA Buses, MO............................. 3,750,000
Kansas Statewide........................................ 3,000,000
Knoxville Electric Transit Intermodal Center, TN........ 3,400,000
LSU Health Sciences Center, Shreveport Intermodal
Facility, LA........................................ 2,000,000
Lane Transit District Bus Facility, OR.................. 6,000,000
Las Vegas Downtown Transportation Center, NV............ 4,500,000
Las Vegas Transit Access Project, NV.................... 500,000
Livermore Valley Center Project, CA..................... 300,000
Lorain Renovation Train Depot in a Multi-modal Hub, OH.. 2,400,000
Los Angeles MTA Bus and Bus Facility, CA................ 5,000,000
Los Angeles to Pasadena Construction Authority
Intermodal Centers, CA.............................. 3,000,000
Louisiana Statewide..................................... 13,000,000
Lowell-Gallagher Intermodal Facility, MA................ 1,000,000
Lubbock buses, TX....................................... 500,000
Macon Union Station Intermodal Center Rehabilitation, GA 2,000,000
Marquette County Transit Authority bus and bus
facilities, MI...................................... 2,750,000
MARTA Bus Replacement & clean fuel buses & facilities,
GA.................................................. 10,000,000
Maryland Statewide...................................... 13,000,000
Maui County buses, HI................................... 1,500,000
Memphis Airport Intermodal Facility Improvements, TN.... 3,000,000
Metro Area Transit--Intermodal Facility, NE............. 2,000,000
Metro Area Transit,South Omaha/Stockyard Center, NE..... 1,500,000
Metro Transit Bus & Bus facilities, Twin Cities, MN..... 7,000,000
Miami-Dade County, Buses Acquisition, FL................ 3,000,000
Michigan Statewide, Buses & Bus Facilities.............. 4,000,000
Missouri Statewide Bus and Bus Facility Projects........ 5,500,000
Mobile Health Service Buses, NYC, NY.................... 750,000
Modesto Bus Maintenance Facility, CA.................... 500,000
Montclair State Univ.Campus & Community Bus System, NJ.. 1,500,000
Monterey-Salinas Transit (MST) Bus and Bus Facilities,
CA.................................................. 500,000
Montgomery County FDA Transit Center, MD................ 375,000
Montpelier Multimodal Center, VT........................ 3,000,000
Mount Vernon multi-modal facility, WA................... 1,160,000
Mountain Line Buses, Missoula MT........................ 1,000,000
Municipal Transit Operators Coalition, Long Beach, CA... 1,750,000
Nebraska Statewide...................................... 2,000,000
New Hampshire Statewide Bus Acq., NH.................... 3,000,000
New York CNG Urban Buses, NY............................ 4,000,000
Newport Trolley Project, RI............................. 500,000
Niagara Falls International Train Station, NY........... 1,500,000
Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority Buses,
Facilities, NY...................................... 2,500,000
Normal Multi-modal Facility, IL......................... 1,750,000
North Carolina Statewide................................ 8,000,000
North Dakota Statewide.................................. 2,900,000
OATS Bus and Bus Facilities, MO......................... 3,000,000
Oceangateway Development Project, ME.................... 1,500,000
Ohio Statewide Bus and Bus Facilities................... 8,000,000
Oklahoma statewide buses and bus facilities............. 12,000,000
OSU Multimodal Transportation Facility, OK.............. 4,500,000
Palo Alto Bus Facility, CA.............................. 400,000
Penn Station Platform Extension, NJ..................... 2,000,000
Pierce County bus and bus facilities, WA................ 3,000,000
Port Angeles, International Gateway project, WA......... 1,500,000
Port MacKenzie Intermodal Facility, AK.................. 2,000,000
Port of Anchorage Intermodal Facility, AK............... 1,000,000
Potomac & Rappahannock PRTC, Buses, VA.................. 2,000,000
Premium Commuter Service Pilot Program, RI.............. 1,250,000
Pullman Multi-modal Center, PA.......................... 1,000,000
Reno and Sparks Downtown Facilities, NV................. 6,200,000
Rhode Island Statewide.................................. 7,000,000
Richmond Multi-modal Facility, VA....................... 4,000,000
Rio Rancho, Buses and Bus Facilities, NM................ 250,000
Rochester Genesee Transportation Authority's Buses, NY.. 1,500,000
Rosebud Sioux Tribe Bus Facility, SD.................... 206,500
Rural Transit Buses & Facilities, NV.................... 2,000,000
Sacramento Regional Transit District Bus Facility, CA... 1,250,000
Saginaw Transit Authority Regional Service buses, MI.... 500,000
Salem Area Mass Transit Bus and Bus Facility, OR........ 2,000,000
San Antonio, Transit Bus System Modernization, TX....... 3,000,000
San Francisco Muni, Bus and Bus Facilities, CA.......... 5,000,000
Santa Barbara Bus and Bus Facilities, CA................ 750,000
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Buses, CA... 2,000,000
Santa Fe bus and bus facility, NM....................... 1,000,000
Section 5327 Oversight Activities....................... 5,493,500
SEPTA Intermodal Facility, Bucks County, PA............. 2,000,000
SEPTA Norristown Intermodal Facility, PA................ 4,000,000
Seward Buses & Bus Facility, AK......................... 200,000
Ship Creek Pedestrian & Intermodal Facility, AK......... 1,000,000
Sierra Madre CNG Fueling Station, CA.................... 200,000
Small Bus System Program of Projects, WA................ 2,140,000
SMART bus and bus facilities, Oakland County MI......... 1,000,000
Snohomish County Community Transit park and ride, WA.... 3,500,000
Sound Transit regional transit hubs, WA................. 5,000,000
South Bend TRANSPO Buses, IN............................ 1,500,000
South Carolina Statewide................................ 14,000,000
Southeast Missouri Trans. Services Bus & Bus Facilities,
MO.................................................. 500,000
Spokane bus and bus facilities, WA...................... 3,000,000
Springfield Transportation Department Buses, MO......... 2,000,000
Springfield Union Station, MA........................... 8,000,000
St. Charles buses and equipment, MO..................... 245,000
St. Johnsbury Transit Center Rehabilitation, VT......... 250,000
St. Joseph Buses, MO.................................... 2,000,000
START Bus Service, AZ................................... 300,000
Stoddard County van, MO................................. 30,000
TEA21 Setaside (Georgetown and Altoona)................. 7,850,000
Tennessee Statewide Buses and Bus Facility, TN.......... 9,500,000
Thompkins Consolidated Area Transit Bus & bus facility,
NY.................................................. 1,000,000
Topeka Transit Buses, KS................................ 1,500,000
Transit Authority of N. Kentucky Buses and bus facility,
KY.................................................. 1,000,000
Trenton Station Intermodal Project, NJ.................. 12,000,000
Tri-Met Buses, Portland, OR............................. 3,000,000
Troy State University Bus Shuttle Program, AL........... 1,500,000
TTA Transit Authority Bus and Van Purchase, WV.......... 1,800,000
Tucson Downtown Intermodal Center, AZ................... 3,000,000
UNI Intermodal Facility, IA............................. 1,250,000
Union Station Restoration, NY........................... 1,250,000
Union Station/Molton Street Multimodal Facility, AL..... 5,000,000
University of North Alabama Transit Projects, AL........ 2,000,000
University of Rhode Island Student Transportation
Services, RI........................................ 1,250,000
UTA and Park City Transit Buses, UT..................... 5,000,000
Utah Statewide regional intermodal transportation
centers, UT......................................... 1,000,000
Valley Metro/RPTA, Buses & Bus Facilities, Phoenix, AZ.. 8,000,000
Wabash Landing Transit Bus and Bus Facility, IN......... 1,000,000
Wasilla Intermodal Facility, AK......................... 900,000
Wesbrook Parking Garage/Intermodal Facility, ME......... 1,000,000
West Coast Florida Bus Coalition, Buses & Bus
Facilities, FL...................................... 8,000,000
West Lafayette Articulated Buses, IN.................... 2,000,000
West Virginia Statewide................................. 4,000,000
Westchester County Bee-Line Buses, NY................... 1,500,000
Wilkes-Barre Intermodal Facility, PA.................... 1,000,000
Wisconsin Statewide..................................... 12,500,000
WMATA Clean Fleet Bus Program, VA....................... 3,000,000
Wyandotte Co. Buses, KS................................. 500,000
Wyoming Bus & Bus Facilities, WY........................ 2,500,000
York County Transit Authority, Buses, PA................ 1,500,000
Illinois Statewide Buses.--The Committee provide
$10,000,000 to the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT)
for Section 5309 Bus and Bus Facilities grants. The Committee
expects IDOT to provide at least $5,000,000 for Downstate
Illinois replacement buses in Bloomington-Normal, Peoria,
Macomb, Madison County, Rock Island, Rosiclare, Kankakee,
Quincy, Rockford, and Springfield. Further, the Committee
expects IDOT to provide appropriate funds for bus facilities in
Champaign-Urbana (University of Illinois Park and Ride/Daycare
Center), Galesburg, Rockford, and Springfield.
Washington Statewide Small Transit Systems, Buses and Bus
Facilities.--The Committee provides $2,140,000 to the
Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) for
Section 5309 Bus and Bus Facilities grants. The Committee
expects WSDOT to fund the following projects: (1) $432,000 to
Grant Transit Authority; (2) $144,000 to Grays Harbor
Transportation; (3) $288,000 to Island Transit; (4) $96,000 to
Pacific Transit; and, (5) $1,180,000 to Pullman Transit.
fixed guideway modernization
The Committee recommends a total of $1,214,400,000 for the
modernization of existing rail transit systems. Under TEA21 all
of the funds are distributed by formula. The following table
itemizes the fiscal year 2002 rail modernization allocations by
State:
Estimated fiscal year 2003 section 5309 fixed guideway modernization
Fiscal year
State 2003 budget
Alaska.................................................. $2,423,937
Arizona................................................. 1,845,317
California.............................................. 139,151,518
Colorado................................................ 2,261,031
Connecticut............................................. 40,546,804
District of Columbia.................................... 57,562,724
Florida................................................. 19,685,468
Georgia................................................. 27,042,153
Hawaii.................................................. 1,304,537
Illinois................................................ 131,151,605
Indiana................................................. 8,972,016
Louisiana............................................... 2,972,818
Maryland................................................ 29,372,229
Massachusetts........................................... 75,767,529
Michigan................................................ 575,906
Minnesota............................................... 5,896,427
Missouri................................................ 5,008,671
New Jersey.............................................. 104,313,737
New York................................................ 368,542,791
Ohio.................................................... 18,427,652
Oregon.................................................. 4,930,300
Pennsylvania............................................ 100,301,564
Puerto Rico............................................. 2,722,582
Rhode Island............................................ 98,373
Tennessee............................................... 406,222
Texas................................................... 9,197,893
Virginia................................................ 18,194,293
Washington.............................................. 22,695,789
Wisconsin............................................... 884,114
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 1,202,256,000
One percent oversight................................... 12,144,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total appropriation............................... 1,214,400,000
NEW STARTS
The bill provides $1,314,400,000 for New Starts. These
funds are available for major investment studies, preliminary
engineering, right-of-way acquisition, project management,
oversight, and construction for new systems and extensions.
Under section 3009(g) of TEA21, there is an 8-percent statutory
cap on the amount made available for activities other than
final design and construction--that is, alternatives analysis,
environmental impact statements, preliminary engineering, major
investment studies, and other predesign and preconstruction
activities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The bill allocates the funds provided for New Starts as
follows:
Project Amount
Alaska-Hawaii Setaside.................................. $10,296,000
Allegheny Port Authority, Stage II Light Rail Transit,
PA.................................................. 25,600,000
Altamont Commuter Express San Jose to Stockton, CA...... 2,000,000
Anderson County, South Carolina Transit System, SC...... 6,000,000
Baltimore Central Light Rail Double Track Project, MD... 24,000,000
BART, SFO Extension, CA................................. 100,000,000
Birmingham Transit Corridor Study/PE, AL................ 3,000,000
Boston, North Shore Corridor Project, MA................ 1,000,000
Bridgeport Intermodal Corridor Project, CT.............. 8,000,000
Burlington-Middlebury Commuter Rail, VT................. 2,000,000
Canal Streetcar, New Orleans, LA........................ 30,000,000
Charlotte South Corridor Light Rail Project, NC......... 10,000,000
Chicago, Douglas Blue Line Project, IL.................. 55,000,000
Chicago, METRA, Expansion Project, IL................... 52,000,000
Chicago, Ravenswood Brown Line Expansion Project, IL.... 4,000,000
DART, Suburban Areas Extension, Dallas, TX.............. 60,000,000
Dulles Link Project, VA................................. 25,000,000
East Side Access Project, NY............................ 15,000,000
Euclid Corridor Transportation Project, Cleveland, OH... 6,000,000
Houston Advanced Metro Transit Plan..................... 23,400,000
Hudson-Bergen, Hoboken to Tonnelle Ave., NJ............. 40,000,000
Hudson-Bergen, Jersey City, Bayonne & Hoboken, NJ....... 19,000,000
Interstate MAX Light Rail Transit Extension Project, OR. 70,000,000
Johnson County Commuter Rail, KS........................ 400,000
Little Rock River Rail, AR.............................. 4,000,000
Los Angeles East Side MTA, CA........................... 10,000,000
Los Angeles, North Hollywood Extension, CA.............. 40,000,000
Lowell, MA to Nashua, NH Commuter Rail Ext. Project, NH. 3,000,000
MARC Expansion Project, MD.............................. 14,000,000
MARTA North Line Extension Project Completion, GA....... 16,000,000
MATA Medical Rail Extension, TN......................... 10,000,000
Medical Center Light Rail Extension, UT................. 12,000,000
Metro Link Commuter Rail, St. Clair Extension Project,
IL.................................................. 3,000,000
Metro North Rolling Stock, CT........................... 7,000,000
Nashville Light Rail, TN................................ 4,000,000
Newark-Elizabeth Rail Link, 15 Station Light Rail Line,
NJ.................................................. 60,000,000
North Shore Connector Project, Pittsburgh, PA........... 4,000,000
North/South TRAX Light Rail Transit Line, UT............ 1,000,000
Oceanside-Escondido Light Rail Project, CA.............. 20,000,000
Ogden to Provo Commuter Rail Corridor, UT............... 6,000,000
Pawtucket Layover Facility, RI.......................... 4,500,000
Port McKenzie Ferry, AK................................. 5,000,000
Raleigh, Triangle Transit Project, NC................... 15,000,000
Resort Corridor Project, NV............................. 10,000,000
Salt Lake City University TRAX Light Rail Transit Line,
UT.................................................. 69,000,000
San Diego Mission Valley East Line Project, CA.......... 65,000,000
San Juan--Tren Urbano................................... 45,000,000
Santa Fe/El Dorado Rail Link, NM........................ 2,000,000
Scranton to New York City Passenger Rail Service, PA.... 3,000,000
SEPTA Schuylkill Valley Metro Project, PA............... 15,000,000
Sounder Commuter Rail, WA............................... 30,000,000
Stamford Urban Transitway, Phase 2 Project, CT.......... 15,000,000
T-REX Southeast Light Rail Corridor, CO................. 70,000,000
Tri-Rail, Double Track Improvement, FL.................. 25,000,000
Twin Cities Hiawatha & Northstar Projects, MN........... 60,000,000
Vermont Transportation Authority Rolling Stock, VT...... 2,000,000
Virginia Railway Express VRE, Project, VA............... 4,500,000
Wilmington Train Station improvements, DE............... 4,000,000
Wilsonville to Beaverton Commuter Rail Project, OR...... 5,000,000
WMATA Addison Rd, Largo Extension, MD................... 60,000,000
Anderson County, South Carolina Transit System.--The
Anderson County trolley system would prove an integral part of
the commuter population in Anderson County. It would move
people, many of which are low income, from their homes to jobs
by using the rail system. This would create a more efficient
and environmentally conscious answer to the overburdened system
currently in place. The project is currently in alternatives
analysis. The Committee has recommended $6,000,000 in New
Starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2003.
Atlanta, Georgia, north line extension project.--The
Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) has
completed construction of a 2.3-mile, 2-station extension of
the North Line from the Dunwoody station to North Springs. This
extension initiated Revenue Operations on December 16, 2001.
This extension serves the rapidly-growing area north of
Atlanta, which includes Perimeter Center and north Fulton
County, and connects this area with the rest of the region by
providing better transit service for both commuters and inner-
city residents traveling to expanding job opportunities. On
December 20, 1994, FTA issued an FFGA committing a total of
$305,010,000 in New Starts funding to this project. In the
Conference Report to the fiscal year 2000 appropriations act,
FTA was instructed to amend the FFGA for this project to
incorporate a change in scope as authorized under section
3030(d)(2) of TEA21. Accordingly, on March 2, 2000, FTA amended
the FFGA to include 28 additional railcars, a multilevel
parking facility in lieu of a surface parking lot, and
enhancements to customer security and amenity measures at the
Sandy Springs and North Springs stations. The total cost of the
amended project is $463,180,000, with $370,540,000 from the
section 5309 New Starts program. Of the $65,530,000 increase in
Federal funding, $10,670,000 was applied from unexpended prior-
year funds identified from cost savings on the Dunwoody section
of the North Line extension. Including these prior-year funds,
a total of $354,500,000 has been appropriated for this project
through fiscal year 2002. This leaves $16,100,000 remaining in
the amended FFGA for this project. The Committee has
recommended $16,000,000 in New Starts funding for this project
in fiscal year 2003.
Baltimore/Central LRT Double-Tracking.--The Maryland Mass
Transit Administration is constructing 9.4-miles of track to
upgrade designated areas of the Baltimore Central Corridor
Light Rail Line that are currently single track. The Central
Corridor is 29-miles long and operates between Hunt Valley in
the north to Cromwell/Glen Burnie in the south, serving
Baltimore City and Baltimore and Anne Arundel Counties, with
extensions providing direct service to the Amtrak Penn Station
and the Baltimore-Washington International Airport. This
project double-tracks eight sections of the Central Corridor
between Timonium and Cromwell Station/Glen Burnie, for a total
of 9.4-miles. Although no new stations are required, the
addition of a second track will require construction of second
station platforms at four stations. Other elements included in
the project are bridge and crossing improvements, a bi-
directional signal system with traffic signal preemption on
Howard Street, and catenary and other equipment and systems.
The double tracking will be constructed almost entirely in
existing right-of-way. In July 2001, FTA and MTA entered into a
FFGA in the amount of $120,000,000 in 5309 New Starts funds.
The total estimated cost of the project is $153,700,000
(escalated dollars). A total of $21,490,000 has been
appropriated through fiscal year 2002. The Committee has
recommended $24,000,000 in New Starts funding for this project
in fiscal year 2003.
Birmingham, Alabama, transit corridor project.--The
Birmingham Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) completed a
Regional Transit Feasibility Analysis as part of the Strategic
Regional Multi-modal Mobility Plan (Plan) in November 1999. The
overall Plan includes a congestion management system element
and a feasibility determination for regional transportation and
transit improvements for the Birmingham Metropolitan Planning
Area of Jefferson and Shelby Counties. In the Phase I regional
transportation and investment planning process, the
transportation alternatives that were identified included
highway improvements, high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes,
improved fixed-route transit service, circulator and feeder bus
service, express bus service operating from park-and-ride lots
on HOV lanes and light rail transit. The conclusions from the
Phase I effort included, among other findings, the need to
address long-term dedicated public transit funding and land
development policies. The Birmingham MPO, representing local
municipal and county governments, in cooperation with the
Birmingham-Jefferson County Transit Authority, is conducting
Phase II. Phase II will identify the locally preferred
alternative in each corridor in accordance with FTA's
regulations for Major Capital Investment Projects. Phase II is
scheduled for completion in fiscal year 2002. Through fiscal
year 2002, Congress has appropriated $10,860,000 in section
5309 New Starts funds for this effort and it has been
authorized in TEA21. The Committee has recommended $3,000,000
in New Starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2003.
Burlington, Vermont, Burlington to Middlebury rail line
project.--The Vermont Agency of Transportation and Vermont Rail
Division are working to slowly rehabilitate the rail system
along the western side of the State to provide faster and more
efficient service to a greater amount of people in Vermont.
Given the overwhelming success of the Champlain Flyer commuter
rail line from Burlington to Charlotte, Vermont. This new rail
line would extend service to Middlebury as well as add more
daily travelers on the rail system. The Committee has
recommended $2,000,000 in New Starts funding for this project
in fiscal year 2003.
Charlotte, North Carolina, south corridor light rail
transit project.--The Charlotte Area Transit System (CATS), in
cooperation with the City of Charlotte, is proposing to design
and construct an 11.2-mile light rail transit line extending
from Uptown Charlotte to the Town on Pineville, North Carolina,
near the South Carolina border. The proposed project is
currently planned to operate within portions of existing
Norfolk-Southern (NS) railroad rights-of-way (ROW), including
sharing ROW with the city's existing downtown trolley system.
The south corridor is an area generally paralleling I-77 along
NS railroad ROW in the City of Charlotte and Mecklenburg
County. A 3.7-mile portion of the proposed system--between
Uptown and Scaleybark Road--would operate on abandoned NS ROW
owned by the City of Charlotte. The remainder of the planned
system (7.3 miles) would operate on separate tracks generally
paralleling NS ROW. The proposed project also includes
construction of 16 stations, purchase of up to 15 light rail
vehicles and the construction of a light rail vehicle
maintenance and storage facility. Seven proposed stations from
I-485 north to Scaleybark Road will include park-and-ride lots
and serve as transfer points for local and express bus service.
Total capital costs for the south corridor project are
estimated at $348,200,000. The Federal share is estimated to be
$174,000,100 (50 percent). Through fiscal year 2002, Congress
has appropriated $19,780,000 in section 5309 New Starts funds
for this effort. It has also been authorized under TEA21. The
Committee has recommended $10,000,000 in New Starts funding for
this project in fiscal year 2003.
Chicago, Illinois, Douglas Branch reconstruction project.--
The Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) has implemented a complete
reconstruction of the approximately 6.6-mile length of the
existing Douglas Branch heavy rail line. The line extends from
just west of downtown Chicago to its terminus at Cermak Avenue.
The Douglas Branch was built in the late 19th and early 20th
centuries. Due to its age, the line has become seriously
deteriorated resulting in high maintenance and operating costs
and declining service. The Douglas Branch currently carries
approximately 27,000 average weekday boardings utilizing 11
stations. In the year 2020, CTA expects that the project would
serve 6,000 daily new riders. It serves one of the most
economically distressed areas in Chicago; low income households
make up 30 percent of the total number of households within
walking distance of the stations. The line has been in
operation for over 100 years, and serves neighborhoods that
originally developed along the system. The corridor contains an
estimated 54,000 jobs and 115,000 residents within one-half
mile of the stations, and serves the University of Illinois at
Chicago (25,000 students) and a large, dense central business
district with an estimated 339,000 jobs. Population and
employment densities are high, averaging 9,100 jobs and nearly
20,000 people per square mile. After ``looping'' through the
central business district, the Blue Line also extends to O'Hare
International Airport and the Medical Center Complex. The total
capital cost of the Douglas Branch reconstruction project is
estimated at $482,500,000. The Douglas Branch is authorized for
final design and construction by section 3030(a)(106) of TEA21.
FTA and CTA entered into an FFGA in January 2001 committing
$320,100,000 in Section 5309 New Starts funds to this project.
A total of $52,200,000 has been appropriated through fiscal
year 2002. This leaves $267,900,000 needed to fulfill the FFGA.
The Committee has recommended $55,000,000 in New Starts funding
for this project in fiscal year 2003.
Chicago, Illinois, Metra North Central, Southwest Corridor
Commuter Rails, and Union Pacific West line extension
project.--Metra, the commuter rail division of the Regional
Transportation Authority (RTA) of northeastern Illinois, will
construct 16.3 miles of a second mainline track, including a
2.3-mile stretch of third track, along the existing 55-mile
North Central Service (NCS) commuter rail line to accommodate
increased service and operating speeds. The project also
includes the construction of five new stations, parking
facilities and the purchase of two diesel locomotives. The
North Central Corridor extends from downtown Chicago to Antioch
on the Illinois-Wisconsin border, traversing suburban Cook and
Lake counties. Metra estimates that 8,400 average weekday
boardings will occur on the NCS line in the year 2020. The
total capital cost of the North Centeral project is estimated
at $225,520,000, of which Metra is expected to seek
$135,320,000 in section 5309 New Starts funding. The North
Central Corridor extends from downtown Chicago to Antioch on
the Illinois-Wisconsin border, and traverses suburban Lake
County. It includes the two most significant hubs of employment
in the six-county northeastern Illinois region, the Chicago CBD
and the area surrounding O'Hare International Airport. Metra
estimates that this project will serve an average of 8,400
average weekday boardings by 2020, with 8,000 daily new riders.
This project has been rated ``medium'' for both project
justification and finance, earning an overall rating of
``recommended.'' FTA approved entry into the final design stage
of development in October 2000. Section 3030(a)(10) of TEA21
authorizes the North Central project for final design and
construction. The North Central Full Funding Grant Agreement
was signed on November 5, 2001. Through fiscal year 2002, a
total of $51,260,000 was provided for the Metra North Central
project. Metra, the commuter rail division of the RTA of
Northeast Illinois (NE IL), will construct an additional 12
miles of trackage within an existing 33-mile corridor
connecting Union Station in downtown Chicago to 179th Street in
Orland Park, Illinois. The Southwest Corridor (SWC) commuter
rail project would extend commuter rail service from Orland
Park southwest to Manhattan, Illinois. The project also
includes the construction of 3.3 miles of a second mainline,
three additional stations, parking facilities and multiple
improvements to tracks, signals, stations, and other
facilities. Section 3030(a)(12) of TEA21 authorized the
``Southwest extension''. The total cost of the Southwest
Corridor commuter rail project is estimated at $198,176,649.
Through fiscal year 2002, $38,500,000 was provided for the
Southwest Corridor project. Metra and FTA entered into a FFGA
in November 2001 committing $103,020,000 in section 5309 New
Starts funds to the project. Metra, the commuter rail division
of the RTA of NE IL, is implementing an 8.5-mile extension to
the existing 35-mile Union Pacific West Line (UPW). The project
would extend the line approximately 8.5 miles west from Geneva
to Elburn, Illinois. The project also includes multiple
improvements to track and signals, construction of two new
stations, parking facilities, the purchase of two diesel
locomotives and the construction of a new overnight train
storage yard. Section 3030(a)(13) of TEA21 authorizes this
project as the Chicago ``west line extension''. The total
capital costs of the Union Pacific West Line Extension is
estimated at $134,603,334 (escalated dollars) in Federal New
Starts funding (60 percent). Through fiscal year 2002, a total
of $34,840,000 has been appropriated for the UPW project. The
Committee has recommended a combined amount of $52,000,000 in
New Starts funding for these three projects in fiscal year
2003.
Chicago, Illinois, Ravenswood reconstruction project.--The
Chicago Transit Authority is proposing to reconstruct existing
platforms and expand stations along the Ravenswood (Brown) Line
to accommodate eight-car trains, increasing the overall
capacity of the line. The Ravenswood Line extends 9.3 miles
from the north side of Chicago to the ``Loop elevated'' in
downtown Chicago and includes 19 stations. The majority of the
Brown line is operated on an elevated structure except one
portion near the north end of the line, which operates at
grade. The Brown line was built between 1900 and 1907. CTA
anticipates approximately 68,000 average weekday boardings,
including 12,300 daily new riders, in the year 2020 on the
Ravenswood Line. The proposed project would expand stations and
platforms and straighten curves to allow CTA to operate longer
trains, which would increase the capacity of the line. Section
3030(a)(11) of TEA21 authorized the project. In November 1997,
CTA included the Ravenswood line expansion project in the
region's financially constrained long-range transportation
plan. The environmental review process for the Ravenswood Line
Expansion Project was completed in July 2002. A Finding of No
Significant Impact was determined. An evaluation is now being
done to determine whether the project is eligible to enter into
Final Design. Total capital costs are currently estimated at
$476,000,000 (escalated dollars), including a requested
$245,500,000 in section 5309 New Starts funds. Through fiscal
year 2002, Congress has appropriated $7,890,000 in section 5309
New Starts funds to the project. The Committee has recommended
$4,000,000 in New Starts funding for this project in fiscal
year 2003.
Cleveland, Ohio, Euclid Corridor Transportation Project
(ECTP).--The Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority
(GCRTA) is proposing to implement a 9.8-mile transit corridor
incorporating exclusive bus rapid transit lanes and related
capital improvements on Euclid Avenue from Public Square in
downtown Cleveland east to University Circle. The proposed
project is known as the Euclid Corridor Transportation Project
(ECTP). The ECTP incorporates a series of transit improvements
including an exclusive center median busway along Euclid Avenue
from Public Square to University Circle area and continue into
the city of East Cleveland, terminating at the Stokes/
Windermere rapid transit station. GCRTA proposes to operate 60-
foot articulated electric trolley buses (ETB) with both left
and right-hand side doors for access and egress of patrons on
the corridor. The ETBs will have access to the entire length of
the proposed corridor. However, conventional buses will not be
able to access Euclid Avenue in the central business district.
GCRTA estimates that 29,500 average weekday boardings,
including 2,400 daily new riders, will use the ECTP in the year
2025. Section 3035 of ISTEA authorized FTA to enter into a
multiyear grant agreement for development of the Dual Hub
Corridor. In November 1995, the GCRTA Board of Trustees
selected the ETCP as the locally preferred alternative (LPA),
which included a busway and the rehabilitation and relocation
of several existing rapid rail stations. In December 1995, the
Northeast Ohio areawide coordinating agency (local metropolitan
planning organization) adopted a resolution supporting the
ECTP. In mid-1999, GCRTA reconfigured the scope of the ECTP to
incorporate only the construction of a busway along Euclid
Avenue. The rapid rail elements have been eliminated from the
ECTP proposal for section 5309 New Starts funding. The
environmental review process was completed in September 2001. A
Finding of No Significant Impact was determined. FTA approved
the ECTP into final design. Total capital costs for the ECTP
are estimated at $228,600,000 (escalated dollars), of which
Cleveland is expected to seek $135,000,000 in section 5309 New
Starts funding for the project (59 percent). Through fiscal
year 2002, Congress has appropriated $19,390,000 in section
5309 New Starts funds for the Euclid corridor transportation
project. Of this amount, Congress reprogrammed $4,720,000 to
other projects. The Committee has recommended $6,000,000 in New
Starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2003.
Dallas, Texas, North Central LRT extension project.--Dallas
Area Rapid Transit (DART) is constructing a 12.5-mile, 9-
station extension of its light rail system from the Park Lane
Station north to the City of Plano. DART estimates that
approximately 17,000 riders will use this extension by 2020, of
which 6,800 will be new riders. The total cost of this project
is estimated at $517,200,000. DART began contracting for
construction and purchasing vehicles and necessary right-of-way
in May 1998, and expects to open the North Central extension
for revenue service in December 2003. The North Central
extension is authorized for final design and construction under
section 3030(a)(20) of TEA21. FTA issued an FFGA for this
project on October 6, 1999, which will provide a total of
$333,000,000 in section 5309 New Starts funding. Through fiscal
year 2002, a total of $230,910,000 has been provided to this
project. The Committee has recommended $60,000,000 in New
Starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2003.
Denver, Colorado, Southeast Corridor LRT project.--The
Regional Transportation District (RTD) in Denver and the
Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) are implementing a
19.12-mile, 13-station light rail line between downtown Denver
and Lincoln Avenue in Douglas County along I-25, with a spur
along I-225 to Parker Road in Arapahoe County. Formerly
referred to as the Southeast Corridor, it is now known locally
as the Transportation Expansion Project (TREX). The double-
tracked line would operate over an exclusive right-of-way and
connects with both the existing Central Corridor light rail
line in downtown Denver, and the Southwest line which was
completed and opened for revenue operation in July 2000. The
total capital cost of this project is estimated at
$879,274,000. Revenue service is now projected to begin by
October 2006, 18 months earlier than anticipated. Section
3030(a)(23) of TEA21 authorized the Southeast LRT in Denver for
final design and construction. FTA issued an FFGA for this
project on November 17, 2000, which will provide a total of
$525,000,000 in section 5309 New Starts funding. A total of
$60,860,000 in section 5309 New Starts funds has been
appropriated for this project through fiscal year 2002. The
Committee has recommended $70,000,000 in New Starts funding for
this project in fiscal year 2003.
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, Tri-Rail Commuter Rail Upgrade.--
The Tri-County Commuter Rail Authority (Tri-Rail) is proposing
a number of system improvements to the 71.7-mile regional
transportation system it operates between Palm Beach, Broward
and Dade Counties in South Florida. This area has a population
of over 4 million, nearly one-third of the total population of
Florida. The planned improvements include construction of a
second mainline track, rehabilitation of the signal system,
station and parking improvements, acquisition of new rolling
stock, improvements to the Hialeah Maintenance Yard facility,
and construction of a new, northern layover facility. The
proposed double-tracking will improve service by a factor of
three, permitting 20-minute intervals between trains during
peak commuter hours instead of the current 1-hour headways.
Tri-Rail estimates that these improvements will serve 42,100
average daily boardings by 2015, including 10,200 daily new
riders. On May 16, 2000, FTA issued an FFGA for Segment 5 of
the Double Track Corridor Improvement Program, which includes
construction of 44.3 miles of the second mainline track and
upgrades to the existing grade crossing system along the entire
71.7-mile South Florida Rail Corridor. It is expected to open
for revenue service on March 21, 2005. The first four segments,
upgrading the Hialeah Maintenance Yard and replacing the New
River Bridge, while part of the overall Double Track Corridor
Improvement Program, are not included in the scope of this
project. Total capital costs for the Segment 5 project are
estimated at $327,000,000. The FFGA for the Double Track
Corridor Improvement Program Segment 5 Project will provide a
total of $110,500,000 in section 5309 New Starts funding.
Through fiscal year 2002, Congress has appropriated $52,400,000
for this project. This project has been authorized in TEA21.
The Committee has recommended $25,000,000 in New Starts funding
for this project in fiscal year 2003.
Houston, Texas, Metro advanced transit plan project.--The
Advanced Transit Program (ATP) is Houston METRO's plan for
advanced high capacity transit in its 1,285 square mile service
area. The first component to begin operation will be the
locally funded 7.5-mile METRO Rail light rail project from
downtown to Reliant Park. The next projects will flow from
ongoing implementation of the METRO Mobility 2025. Adopted by
the Board of Directors in May 2001, this is METRO's long-range
transit plan for the region. The next steps in the ATP will be
studies in the corridors designated for consideration of
advanced high capacity transit. The four highest priority
corridors will be subject to detailed alternatives analysis
studies, defining mode and general alignment of the proposed
advanced high capacity transit improvements. As a result of
those studies, preferred alternatives for each corridor will be
adopted and moved forward to implementation. By 2025, the ATP
will have introduced advanced high capacity into many of the
region's major travel corridors. The specific mode will be
tailored to meet individual corridor travel needs while
maintaining system connectivity. This project has been
authorized in TEA21. The Committee has recommended $23,400,000
in New Starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2003.
Johnson County, Kansas, commuter rail project engineering
and design.--Johnson County, Kansas is proposing to implement a
5 station, 23-mile Commuter Rail line extending from downtown
Kansas City, Missouri, southwest to Olathe, Kansas, in Johnson
County. The proposed commuter rail project would parallel
Interstate 35, the major highway connecting Kansas City with
Olathe, and would share existing Burlington Northern and Santa
Fe (BNSF) railroad track (except for the line's northern-most
mile segment, which would require either new track or existing
Kansas City Terminal Railway trackage). Park and ride
facilities are being planned for each proposed station. The
commuter rail line will terminate in Kansas City at its
historic Union Station. Ridership estimates for the I-35
commuter rail project range from 1,400 to 3,800 trips per day.
These estimates will be refined during subsequent phases of
project development. TEA21 section 5309(e)(8)(A) applies to
this project. Through fiscal year 2002, Congress has
appropriated $4,450,000 for this project. The Committee has
recommended $400,000 in New Starts funding for this project in
fiscal year 2003.
Largo, Maryland, Metrorail, extension project.--The
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) is
constructing a 3.1-mile heavy rail extension of the Metrorail
blue line. The Largo Metrorail Extension will be from the
existing Addison Road Station to Largo town center, located
just beyond the Capital beltway in Prince George's County,
Maryland. The project follows an alignment that has been
preserved as a rail transit corridor in the Prince Georges's
County master plan. The 3.1-mile alignment will contain at-,
above-, and below-grade segments. Two new stations will be
provided at Summerfield and at the Largo town center station.
The stations will provide 500 and 2,200 park-and-ride spaces
and 11 bus bays each. A number of local bus routes will connect
to the two new stations; shuttle bus service is proposed
between both stations and the FedEx Field, a major sports
complex planned for entertainment and retail uses. Maryland
Transit Administration (MTA) will manage the project through
preliminary engineering, with WMATA undertaking final design
and construction. The project is anticipated to open for
service by December 2004, with a total capital cost estimated
at $433,900,000. In December 2000, FTA entered into an FFGA
with WMATA that commits a total of $260,300,000 in section 5309
New Starts funds to this project. Through fiscal year 2002,
Congress has appropriated $67,530,000 to this project. This
project has been authorized in TEA21. The Committee has
recommended $60,000,000 in New Starts funding for this project
in fiscal year 2003.
Las Vegas/Resort Corridor.--The Las Vegas Regional
Transportation Commission (RTC) is in the process of conducting
preliminary engineering on the proposed 3.1-mile Resort
Corridor Automated Guideway Transit (elevated monorail)
project. The monorail will serve the Las Vegas central business
district and the northern part of the resort corridor along the
Las Vegas ``strip'' from Freemont Avenue to Sahara Avenue. The
Resort Corridor represents the region's largest primary
employment center, as about 50 percent of the regional jobs
(206,000) are located in this corridor. There are an estimated
69,300 jobs and 21,800 residents within a one-half mile from
the proposed monorail boarding points. The RTC estimates the
proposed system will carry approximately 58,500 weekday
boardings, including 19,880 daily new riders in 2020. Based in
the 1990 census data, there are an estimated 1,690 low-income
households within a one-half mile radius of the proposed six
stations. Revenue operations are scheduled to begin in January
2004. This project represents an extension to a 4-mile fully
automated monorail that is currently under construction by the
Las Vegas Monorail Company (LVMC). The estimated capital cost
for the 3.1-mile Resort Corridor monorail project is estimated
to be $440,000,000, of which the RTC is seeking $130,000,000,
or 30 percent, in New Starts funding. Through fiscal year 2002,
Congress has appropriated $13,880,000 for this project. The
Committee is recommending $10,000,000 in New Starts funding for
this project in fiscal year 2003.
Little Rock, Arkansas, river rail project.--The Central
Arkansas Transit Authority (CATA) is planning the
implementation of a vintage streetcar circulator system on
existing right-of-way connecting the Alltel Arena, the River
Market, and the Convention Center in downtown Little Rock to
the communities of North Little Rock and Pulaski County. CATA
proposes that service be provided by seven replica streetcars
operating on a single track powered by overhead catenary. The
proposed system includes a 2.1-mile alignment, purchase of
vehicles, and construction of a maintenance facility. Ridership
projections estimate 1,000 to 1,200 average weekday boardings
with an additional 1,000 to 1,800 riders on special event days.
A future 0.4-mile extension to the William Jefferson Clinton
Presidential Library site has been proposed. Revenue service is
planned to begin in December 2002. This project is addressed in
the TEA21 section 5309(e)(8)(A). The Committee has appropriated
$7,930,000 in New Starts funding for this project through
fiscal year 2002 and has recommended $4,000,000 in New Starts
funding for this project in fiscal year 2003.
Long Island Rail Road, New York, East Side access
project.--The New York Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) is
currently in final design on a proposed direct access for Long
Island Rail Road (LIRR) passengers to a new passenger concourse
in Grand Central Terminal (GCT) in east Midtown Manhattan. The
proposed 4-mile, 2 station, commuter rail extension under the
East River, using an existing rail tunnel, is anticipated to
alleviate LIRR tunnel capacity constraints and enable the
overall growth of the Nation's largest commuter rail system.
The project would provide access to the eastern part of midtown
Manhattan for users of the LIRR who now must get to east
midtown by subway or walking from Penn Station. By allowing
some LIRR passengers to use GCT, the project would also free up
capacity at Penn Station for New Jersey Transit and Amtrak
trains. The LIRR ESA project would serve one of the strongest
transit market in the country. By the year 2020, MTA/LIRR
projects that the LIRR ESA project will serve approximately
167,000 average weekday boardings including 15,400 daily new
riders. Based on 1990 census data, MTA/LIRR estimates that
there are approximately 4,443 low-income households within a
one-half mile radius of proposed station areas. MTA/LIRR
estimates that the LIRR ESA project would yield 7.4 million
hours of travel-time savings. MTA estimates that the LIRR ESA
would serve approximately 698,200 jobs that are located within
a one-half mile radius of the proposed station areas. The
project is scheduled for completion by December 2012 at a
projected cost of $4,350,000,000. MTA is proposing a request
for $2,170,000,000 (50 percent share) in New Starts funding. In
fiscal year 2002, Congress appropriated $14,600,000 in section
5309 New Starts funds for the continued development of the LIRR
ESA project. The Committee has recommended $15,000,000 in New
Starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2003.
Los Angeles, California, East Side corridor light rail
transit project.--The Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority (MTA) is proposing to implement a 5.9-
mile light rail transit (LRT) line in the Eastside Corridor,
connecting Downtown Los Angeles with low-to moderate-income
communities in East Los Angeles. The proposed system would
include 8 stations and will traverse eastward from Union
Station (the city's major intermodal hub, serving intercity,
commuter, and regional rail service, as well as local and
express bus services) along Alameda Street through the City
Terrace, Belvedere, and East Los Angeles communities of
unincorporated Los Angeles County. The project would terminate
at Beverly and Atlantic Boulevards, where a 500-space park-and-
ride facility is planned. The project is primarily at-grade,
with a 1.8-mile mid-section underground in tunnel. The project
is intended to improve mobility for residents and employees in
the corridor, and provide improved access to employment
opportunities throughout the MTA service area. 15,000 average
weekday boardings are forecasted on the proposed line in 2020,
including 9,700 daily new riders. The project is estimated to
cost $818,000,000 in escalated dollars, with a section 5309 New
Starts share of $491,000,000. This project has been authorized
in TEA21. The Committee has recommended $10,000,000 in New
Starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2003.
Los Angeles, California, North Hollywood extension
project.--The Los Angeles Metro Rail Red Line rapid-rail system
is being planned, programmed and constructed in phases, through
a series of ``Minimum Operable Segments'' (MOSs). The first of
these segments (MOS 1), a 4.4-mile, 5-station segment, opened
for revenue service in January 1993. A 2.1-mile, 3-station
segment of MOS 2 opened along Wilshire Boulevard in July 1996;
an additional 4.6-mile, 5-station segment of MOS 2 opened in
June 1999, and the Federal funding commitment has been
fulfilled. On May 14, 1993, an FFGA was issued to the Los
Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA)
for the third construction phase, MOS 3. MOS 3 was defined
under ISTEA (section 3034) to include three segments: the North
Hollywood segment, a 6.3-mile, 3-station subway extension of
the Hollywood branch of MOS 2 to North Hollywood through the
Santa Monica mountains; the Mid-City segment, a 2.3-mile, 2-
station western extension of the Wilshire Boulevard branch; and
an undefined segment of the Eastside project, to the east from
the existing Red Line terminus at Union Station. LACMTA later
defined this eastern segment as a 3.7-mile, 4-station extension
under the Los Angeles River to First and Leona in East Los
Angeles. On December 28, 1994, the FFGA for MOS 3 was amended
to include this definition of the eastern segment, bringing the
total commitment of Federal New Starts funds for MOS 3 to
$1,416,490,000. In January 1997, FTA requested that LACMTA
submit a recovery plan to demonstrate its ability to complete
MOS 2 and MOS 3, while maintaining and operating the existing
bus system. On January 14, 1998, the LACMTA Board of Directors
voted to suspend and demobilize construction on all rail
projects other than MOS 2 and the MOS 3 North Hollywood
Extension. The MTA submitted a recovery plan to FTA on May 15,
1998, which was approved by FTA on July 2, 1998. In 1998,
LACMTA undertook a Regional Transportation Alternatives
Analysis (RTAA) to analyze and evaluate feasible alternatives
for the Eastside and Mid-City corridors. The RTAA addressed
system investment priorities, allocation of resources to
operate existing transit services at a reliable standard,
assessment and management of financial risk, countywide bus
service expansion, and a process for finalizing corridor
investments. On November 9, 1998, the LACMTA Board reviewed the
RTAA and directed staff to reprogram resources previously
allocated to the Eastside and Mid-City Extensions to the
implementation of RTAA recommendations, including the LACMTA
Accelerated Bus Procurement Plan. LACMTA continued to study
transit investment options for the Eastside and Mid-City
corridors. In October 2000, FTA approved entry into preliminary
engineering for a 5.9-mile, 8-station light rail line in the
Eastside Corridor between downtown Los Angeles and East Los
Angeles. The Mid-City corridor is still undergoing alternatives
analysis. FTA will consider the prior Federal commitment under
the MOS 3 FFGA as an ``other factor'' for rating and evaluation
purposes for these projects, as long as the identified projects
otherwise meet the requirements of the New Starts program. On
June 9, 1997, FTA and LACMTA negotiated a revised FFGA covering
the North Hollywood segment (Phase 1-A) of MOS 3, which opened
in June 2000. The total capital cost of the North Hollywood
project is estimated at $1,310,820,000 of which the revised
FFGA commits $681,040,000 in section 5309 New Starts funds.
Through fiscal year 2002, a total of $640,550,000 has been
appropriated for the North Hollywood segment of MOS 3. This
project has been authorized in TEA21. The Committee has
recommended $40,000,000 in New Starts funding for this project
in fiscal year 2003.
Maryland, MARC commuter rail improvement projects.--The
Maryland Mass Transit Administration is proposing three
projects for the Maryland Commuter Rail (MARC) system serving
the Baltimore, MD and Washington, DC metropolitan areas. These
projects are (1) Mid-Day Storage Facility, (2) Penn-Camden
Connection, and (3) Silver Spring Intermodal Transit Center.
The proposed Mid-Day Storage Facility would be used for daytime
equipment layover, minor repair, daily servicing and
inspections of commuter rail train sets within the Amtrak Yard
at Washington, DC's Union Station. Platforms that are currently
used to store these trains at Union Station will no longer be
available following the introduction of high-speed Amtrak
service, and the new facility will avoid the operating cost of
sending trains back to Baltimore for mid-day storage. MTA will
lease the 5-acre site owned by Amtrak. Estimated capital costs
for the Mid-Day Storage Facility project totals $26,600,000.
The Penn-Camden Connection is a 6-mile connection between the
MARC Camden Line and MARC Penn Line/Amtrak Northeast Corridor
in southwest Baltimore. The connection of these two commuter
rail lines is designed to achieve many benefits: the
opportunity to remove trains from the congested Camden line for
reverse peak movements; access to the planned MARC Maintenance
Facility to be located along the connection; and, increased
operating flexibility on both commuter rail lines, allowing
redirection of MARC service during periods of CSX freight
operations. Estimated capital costs for the Penn-Camden
Connection project totals $33,300,000. The proposed Silver
Spring Intermodal Transit Center, located in suburban
Washington, DC, will construct an intermodal transit facility
that relocates the Silver Spring MARC Station to the Silver
Spring Metrorail station. The transit center would allow
convenient passenger transfers between several modes of travel,
including commuter rail, heavy rail, commuter and local bus
service, taxi, bicycle, auto, and pedestrians. The center will
also accommodate the proposed Georgetown Branch Trolley to
operate between Silver Spring and Bethesda. Located in the
Silver Spring, MD central business district, a major transit
hub for lower Montgomery County, the intermodal transit center
will more efficiently meet existing and future transit needs of
this area. Estimated capital costs for the Silver Spring
Intermodal Transit Center project totals $33,300,000. Section
3030(g)(2) of TEA21 authorizes these projects as part of the
Frederick extension, and will permit service improvements
necessary to take full advantage of that extension. The
proposed share of Federal funding from the section 5309 New
Starts program is less than $25,000,000 for each of the
individual improvements, which renders them exempt from
evaluation. The Committee has recommended $14,000,000 in New
Starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2003.
Memphis, Tennessee Medical Center Extension project.--The
Memphis Area Transit Authority (MATA), in cooperation with the
City of Memphis, is proposing to build a 2-mile light rail
extension to the Main Street Trolley/Riverfront Loop village
rail system. The extension would expand service from the
central business district (CBD) east to the Medical Center
area. The line would operate on city streets in mixed traffic
and would connect with the Main Street Trolley, sharing a lane
with automobile traffic on Madison Avenue between Main Street
and Cleveland Street. Six new stations would be located along
the route. The line will be designed to accommodate light rail
vehicles, but vintage rail cars would be used until a proposed
regional LRT line is implemented and a fleet of modern LRT
vehicles is acquired. The total capital cost of this project is
estimated at $74,580,000. This project would be the last
segment of the downtown rail circulation system as well as the
first segment of a regional light rail line. This project is
included in the City of Memphis' Capital Improvement Program,
the Memphis MPO Transportation Improvement Program, and the
State Transportation Improvement Program. A Major Investment
Study/Environmental Assessment was completed in May 1997,
fulfilling the statutory requirement for an alternatives
analysis. FTA approved this project for entry into final design
in May 2000. The Memphis Corridor was authorized for final
design and construction by section 3030(a)(43) of TEA21. On
December 12, 2000 FTA issued an FFGA committing a total of
$59,670,000 in section 5309 new start funds to the Medical
Center Extension. A total of $35,310,000 has been appropriated
for this project through fiscal year 2002. The Committee has
recommended $10,000,000 in New Starts funding for this project
in fiscal year 2003.
Twin Cities/Hiawatha Corridor LRT and Northstar Corridor
Projects.--Metro Transit and the Metropolitan Council of
Minneapolis (the local metropolitan planning organization), in
cooperation with the Minnesota Department of Transportation
(MnDOT), Hennepin County, and the Metropolitan Airports
Commission (MAC), are constructing an 11.6-mile, 17-station
light rail line linking downtown Minneapolis, the Minneapolis-
St. Paul International Airport, and the Mall of America in
Bloomington. The line would operate along the corridor
following Hiawatha Avenue and Trunk Highway 55. The line begins
in the central business district and travels south on the
existing transit mall along 5th Street, follows the former Soo
Line Railroad from the Metrodome to Franklin Avenue, and then
runs parallel with Hiawatha Avenue towards the airport. The
line will tunnel under the runways and taxiways for 1.8 miles,
with 1 station, emerge on the west side of the airport, and
continue south to the vicinity of the Mall of America in
Bloomington. The project is expected to serve 24,800 average
weekday boardings by the year 2020; 19,300 average weekday
boardings are projected in the opening year. Revenue service is
scheduled to commence in December 2004. The total capital cost
of the Hiawatha Corridor LRT is estimated at $675,400,000.
Section 3030(a)(91) of TEA21 authorizes the ``Twin Cities--
Transitway Corridors'' for final design and construction. In
January 2001, FTA issued an FFGA that commits a total of
$334,300,000 in section 5309 New Starts funds to the Hiawatha
Corridor LRT. Of this amount, $168,350,000 has been provided
through fiscal year 2002. The Minnesota Department of
Transportation (MNDOT) is currently undertaking preliminary
engineering on a proposal to design and construct an 82-mile
commuter rail line within the Northstar Corridor that extends
from downtown Minneapolis northwest to Rice, Minnesota. The
Northstar Corridor project also includes the construction of a
1,750-foot light rail transit extension of the Hiawatha
Corridor LRT project currently under construction. The proposed
commuter rail project would serve one of the fast growing
regions of the State. Ridership on the proposed commuter rail
line is expected to be 10,800 average weekday boardings,
including 5,400 daily new riders. Based on 1990 census data,
the MNDOT estimates that there are approximately 1,100 low-
income households within a one-half mile radius of the proposed
11 stations. In the forecast year 2020, MNDOT estimates that
the proposed commuter rail would yield approximately 0.4
million hours of travel-time savings. In addition, The proposed
project would serve approximately 35,700 jobs located within a
one-half mile radius of the proposed station areas,
encompassing the Minneapolis, St. Cloud and Rice central
business districts. During the Spring 2002 legislative session,
the Minnesota State legislature was not able to reach a
consensus on the provision of the State's share of the
project's total estimated capital cost. The State was to
provide approximately $120,000,000. Total capital costs for
this project are estimated to be $294,000,000 including
$147,000,000 in requested section 5309 New Starts funding.
Congress provided $9,900,000 to this project in fiscal year
2002. This project has been authorized in TEA21. The Committee
has recommended $60,000,000 in New Starts funding for the
Hiawatha Corridor LRT and the Northstar Corridor Projects in
fiscal year 2003.
Nashua, New Hampshire-Lowell, Massachusetts, commuter rail
project.--The New Hampshire Department of Transportation is
planning on constructing an 11-mile commuter rail extension
project. The rail line would connect Lowell, Massachusetts and
Nashua, New Hampshire. The project includes the rehabilitation
of track and appurtenances, construction of new track where
necessary, as well as construction of a park-and-ride lot with
a boarding platform. The new service extension will provide an
alternative to a highly congested highway corridor. This
project received funding through the TEA21 authorization as
well as through other appropriations. Through fiscal year 2002,
the Committee has appropriated $5,930,000 in section 5309 New
Starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2002. The
Committee has recommended $3,000,000 in New Starts funding for
this project in fiscal year 2003.
Nashville, Tennessee, regional commuter rail project.--
Nashville's Regional Transportation Authority, the Metropolitan
Planning Organization, and the Metropolitan Transit Authority
have completed the preliminary engineering and environmental
studies. The project is currently in final design. This project
has been authorized in TEA21. Through fiscal year 2002,
$11,870,000 has been appropriated for this project. The
Committee has recommended $4,000,000 in New Starts funding for
this project in fiscal year 2003.
New Jersey/Hudson-Bergen light rail transit project (MOS-
1).--The New Jersey Transit Corporation (NJ Transit) is
constructing a 9.6-mile, Minimum Operable Segment (MOS) of an
eventual 20.1-mile at-grade Hudson-Bergen Light Rail Transit
System (HBLRTS) that will extend from the Vince Lombardi park-
and-ride lot in Bergen County to West Fifth Street in Bayonne
in Hudson County, New Jersey. HBLRTS MOS-1 will connect the
Hoboken Terminal to 34th Street in Bayonne and West Side Avenue
in Jersey City. The core of the completed system will serve the
high-density commercial centers in Jersey City and Hoboken, and
provide connections with NJ Transit commuter rail service, PATH
trains to Newark and Manhattan, and the Port Imperial ferry
from Weehauken to Manhattan. This minimum operable segment
(MOS) is being constructed under a turnkey contract to design,
build, operate, and maintain the system, which was awarded in
October 1996. Total costs are expected to be $992,140,000 for
MOS-1; construction began in December 1996. In August 1996, FTA
and NJ TRANSIT executed a FFGA, committing $604,090,000 in
section 5309 New Starts funding for HBLRTS MOS-1. NJ TRANSIT is
currently providing initial revenue service on HBLRTS MOS-1
from Pavonia-Newport to West Side Avenue and East 34th Street.
Construction on HBLRTS MOS-1 is approximately 85 percent
complete. Full revenue service is scheduled to commence in
September 2002. Through fiscal year 2002, a total of
$584,890,000 has been appropriated for this project. This
project has been authorized in TEA21. The Committee has
recommended $19,000,000 in New Starts funding for this project
in fiscal year 2003.
New Jersey/Hudson-Bergen light rail transit project (MOS-
2).--The second Minimum Operable Segment (MOS-2) of the NJ
Transit Hudson-Bergen LRT system is a 5.1-mile, 7-station
segment running north from Hoboken Terminal to the Tonnelle
Avenue park-and-ride lot in North Bergen, and south to 22nd
Street in Bayonne. The Hudson-Bergen MOS-2 line will serve an
area with one of the highest residential densities in the
region, and the downtown Jersey City area contains the largest
concentration of office development in Hudson County. By
providing connections to ferry and commuter rail service, the
line will also serve the Manhattan central business district.
MOS-2 is scheduled for completion in 2005 and is anticipated to
carry 34,900 average weekday boardings in 2010. Total costs for
MOS-2 are estimated at $1,215,400,000. FTA issued an FFGA for
this project on October 31, 2000, committing a total of
$500,000,000 in section 5309 New Starts funds. The MOS-2
project does not require funding from the section 5309 New
Starts program until fiscal year 2003; the issuance of the FFGA
at this point provided NJ Transit with the authority to borrow
funds to begin construction while the MOS-1 is being completed,
under the same turnkey contract. This permits the entire
Hudson-Bergen project to be constructed at a lower cost by
avoiding the significant costs associated with stopping and
then restarting a major construction project. No prior year
funding has been appropriated for MOS-2 from the section 5309
New Starts program. This project has been authorized in TEA21.
The Committee has recommended $40,000,000 in New Starts funding
for this project in fiscal year 2003.
Newark, New Jersey--Newark Rail Link (MOS-1) Project.--The
New Jersey Transit Corporation (NJ Transit) is constructing a
1-mile, 5-station initial Minimum Operable Segment (MOS-1) of a
proposed 8.8-mile, 16-station light rail transit (LRT) system
between Newark and downtown Elizabeth, New Jersey. MOS-1) will
function as an extension of the existing 4.3-mile Newark City
Subway light rail line, running from Board Street in Newark to
Newark's Penn Station. In August 2000, FTA and NJ TRANSIT
executed a FFGA committing $141,950,000 in section 5309 New
Starts funds. NJ transit is preparing a Supplemental Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) to analyze the effects
of an alignment modification on the segment contained within
the City of Elizabeth (NERL MOS-3) to support extensive
commercial and retail development that has been initiated since
the completion of the original 1997 DEIS for the full 8.8-mile
NERL project. The total cost of the MOS-1 segment is estimated
at $207,700,000 (escalated dollars). Section 3030(a)(57) of
TEA21 authorized the New Jersey Urban Core Project, which
consists of eight separate elements including the Newark-
Elizabeth Rail Link, for final design and construction. On
August 2, 2000 FTA issued an FFGA committing a total of
$141,950,000 in section 5309 New Starts funds to the Newark
Rail Link MOS 1 project. Through fiscal year 2002, Congress has
appropriated a total of $59,390,000 for this project. An
additional $9,910,000 was provided in fiscal year 2001. The
Committee has recommended $60,000,000 in New Starts funding for
this project in fiscal year 2003.
New Orleans, Louisiana, Canal Streetcar project.--The New
Orleans Regional Transit Authority (RTA) is developing a 5.5-
mile streetcar project in the downtown area, along the median
of Canal Street. The Canal Streetcar spine will extend from the
Canal Ferry at the Mississippi River in the central business
district, through the Mid-City neighborhood to Carrollton
Avenue, where one branch will continue on Canal Street to the
Cemeteries and another will follow Carrollton Avenue to City
Park/Beauregard Circle. The corridor is located in an existing,
built-up area that was originally developed in the streetcar
era. Much of the corridor lies within the central business
district and historic areas, where employment and housing
densities, mix of uses, and pedestrian-oriented development are
generally good. The central business district includes a high-
density mix of office, retail, hotels and leisure attractions.
The total capital cost of this project is estimated at
$161,300,000, of which RTA is seeking $129,050,000 (80 percent)
in section 5309 New Starts funding, as recommended by FTA.
Final design is essentially complete, contracts for vehicle
assembly have been awarded, and construction contracts are
pending award. FTA awaits completion of the congressional
review of the proposed FFGA. Section 3030(a)(51) of TEA21
authorizes the New Orleans Canal Streetcar Project for final
design and construction. Through fiscal year 2002, Congress has
appropriated a total of $70,030,000 for this project. The
Committee has recommended $30,000,000 in New Starts funding for
this project in fiscal year 2003.
Pawtucket, Rhode Island, commuter rail and maintenance
facility project.--The existing Massachusetts Bay Transit
Authority layover/storage yard at East Junction, located in the
heavily residential area in Attleboro, needs to be relocated to
a 9-acre parcel located in the northwest quadrant of I 95 and
Smithfield Avenue in Pawtucket. A six-track yard with light
servicing capabilities will be constructed initially. The yard
will be designed to accommodate eight tracks and an electrified
maintenance facility in the future. The Federal share of the
project is $14,700,000 (50 percent), consisting of $10,000,000
in section 5309 New Starts funding and $4,700,000 in Fixed
Guideway Modernization funding, the rest of the project is
being funded through the Rhode Island Department of
Transportation (RIDOT) and the Massachusetts Bay Transit
Authority. Through fiscal year 2002, Congress has appropriated
$5,450,000 in section 5309 in the FTA New Start funds. The
Committee has recommended $4,500,000 in New Starts funding for
this project in fiscal year 2003.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Schuylkill Valley Metro
Project.--The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation
Authority (SEPTA) and the Berks Area Reading Transportation
Authority (BARTA) propose to develop the Schuylkill Valley
Metro Rail project. The proposed project extends approximately
74 miles from Philadelphia to Reading and parallels the
following major congested roadways: Schuylkill Expressway
(Interstate 76), US 422 Expressway and US Route 202. The
corridor includes the smaller cities of Norristown, Pottstown
and Phoenixville. The corridor also includes suburban centers
of King of Prussia and Great Valley, as well as regional
activity centers and attractions including Center City
Philadelphia, Art Museum, Philadelphia Zoo, King of Prussia
Malls, Valley Forge National Park and Reading outlets. The
corridor encompasses three transit authorities: SEPTA, BARTA
and Pottstown Urban Transit (PUT) and two metropolitan planning
regions: Delaware Valley and Berks County. Commuter rail
service currently operates in the eastern portion of the
corridor with rail freight service operations in the western
portion of the corridor. SEPTA and BARTA have selected a
locally preferred alternative (LPA) that would employ rail
vehicle suitable for operation on mixed-use (passenger or
freight) track, capable of one-man operation and with 15 and
30-minute headways in the peak and off peak, respectively.
Total capital cost for the project is estimated at
$1,831,700,000. The DEIS was published in December 2001. FTA
approved entry into PE in January 2002. Through fiscal year
2002, Congress has provided $25,720,000 in section 5309 New
Starts funds for the proposed project. The Committee has
recommended $15,000,000 in New Starts funding for this project
in fiscal year 2003.
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, North Shore Connector light rail
transit project.--The Port Authority of Allegheny County (PAAC)
proposes to construct a 1.6-mile light rail transit system
extension connecting the Golden Triangle and the North Shore
wholly within downtown Pittsburgh. The project would extend the
existing LRT service from the Gateway center LRT station and
the Convention Center. The North Shore Connector LRT project
involves the construction of four new stations and
modifications of the Gateway Center and Steel Plaza stations,
and the acquisition of 10 new light rail vehicles. FTA approval
to initiate preliminary engineering was granted in January
2001. Project capital costs are estimated at $389,900,000
(escalated); revenue service start-up is planned in 2006.
Through fiscal year 2002, Congress has appropriated $23,670,000
in section 5309 New Starts funds (50 percent) for this effort.
The Committee has recommended $4,000,000 in New Starts funding
for this project in fiscal year 2003.
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Stage II LRT Reconstruction
project.--The Port Authority of Allegheny County (``Port
Authority'') is reconstructing Pittsburgh's old 25-mile trolley
lines to modern light rail standards. The reconstruction is
taking place in two stages. The Stage I Light Rail Transit
(LRT) project, undertaken in the 1980s, included reconstruction
of the first segment and construction of Pittsburgh's first
subway. Ground was broken on the Stage I LRT project in
December 1980, and the reconstruction of this segment was
completed in 1987. The Stage II LRT project includes
reconstruction of the remaining 12 miles of the system, which
consists of the Overbrook, Library and Drake trolley lines, to
modern LRT standards. Single-track segments will be double-
tracked, the Overbook and Drake lines (which are currently
closed) will be reopened, and 28 new light rail vehicles are
being purchased. In order to prioritize program needs against
financing requirements, Port Authority reconfigured its rail
improvement program in 1999. As a result, the Stage II LRT
project will itself be undertaken in segments. The revised
Stage II LRT Priority Program includes reconstruction of 10.7
miles on both the Overbrook Line and a portion of the Library
Line, construction of 2,400 park-and-ride spaces, and the
purchase of 28 light rail vehicles. The total capital cost of
the Stage II Priority Program is estimated at $386,460,000. The
remaining portions of the original Stage II LRT project will be
undertaken as local funding becomes available. Section
3030(a)(98) authorizes the ``Pittsburgh--Stage II Light Rail''
project for final design and construction. In January 2001, FTA
issued an FFGA for this project that would commit a total of
$100,200,000 in section 5309 New Starts funding. Through fiscal
year 2002, a total of $41,530,000 has been appropriated in New
Starts funds for this project, and an additional $96,500,000
has been appropriated in section 5309 Fixed Guideway
Modernization funds. The Committee has recommended $25,600,000
in New Starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2003.
Portland, Oregon Interstate MAX LRT Extension project.--The
Tri-County Metropolitan Transit District of Oregon (Tri-Met) is
constructing a 5.8-mile, 10-station extension of the
Metropolitan Area Express (``MAX'') light rail system, which
will connect Portland's central business district with the
regional Exposition Center in north Portland. Riders will be
able to transfer between the Interstate MAX extension and the
existing 33-mile East/West MAX line at the Rose Quarter
station. This line will complement regional land use plans by
connecting established residential, commercial, entertainment
and other major activity centers, and will provide a key
transportation link in the region's welfare-to-work programs.
The total cost of the Interstate MAX project is estimated at
$350,000,000. Tri-Met estimates that the Interstate MAX
extension will serve 18,100 average weekday boardings and 8,400
daily new riders by 2020. On September 20, 2000, FTA and Tri-
Met entered into an FFGA that commits a total of $257,500,000
in section 5309 New Starts funds to the Interstate MAX project.
This does not include funding appropriated in prior years that
were allocated to Portland Metro for the 12-mile South-North
light rail line originally proposed for this corridor. The
Committee has recommended $70,000,000 in New Starts funding for
this project in fiscal year 2003. Through fiscal year 2002, the
Committee appropriated $76,750,000 in section 5309 New Starts
funds for the Interstate MAX light rail extension. This figure
includes $70,000,000 in prior years' section 5309 New Starts
funds that are not included in the FFGA commitment.
Puget Sound, Washington, Sounder Commuter Rail project.--
Sound Transit, the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit
Authority, is implementing commuter rail service along the 82-
mile existing rail corridor between Lakewood and Everett,
Washington. When the Sound Move enabling legislation is fully
implemented, Sounder will serve 13 stations along the corridor,
connecting commuters with local and regional bus service, the
Washington State ferry system, Amtrak, the Central Link light
rail system, and Tacoma Link. Currently, Sounder commuter rail
is providing weekday service during peak hours at seven
stations between downtown Tacoma and Seattle. Once in full
operation, 18 trains will serve the Lakewood-Tacoma-Seattle
Sounder segment, and 12 trains will serve the Everett-Seattle
segment. By 2020, Sounder is estimated to carry 18,800 daily
riders. To date, $79,320,000 has been appropriated for the 82-
mile corridor. The Committee has recommended $30,000,000 in New
Starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2003.
Raleigh, North Carolina, triangle transit project.--The
Phase I Regional Rail project is the first proposed segment of
a three-phased regional transit plan for linking the three
counties--Wake, Durham, and Orange--in the Triangle Region of
North Carolina. In Phase I, the Triangle Transit Authority
(TTA) intends to initiate regional rail service from Durham to
downtown Raleigh and from downtown Raleigh to North Raleigh.
TTA proposes to use Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) rail vehicles to
serve the 16 stations proposed for the Phase I of the project.
TTA has proposed that the Phase I Regional Rail Project will
use the existing North Carolina Railroad and CSX rail corridors
to connect Duke University, downtown Durham, Research Triangle
Park, RDU Airport, Morrisville, Cary, North Carolina State
University, downtown Raleigh, and North Raleigh. The proposed
project is estimated to serve 31,700 average weekday boardings
by the year 2025. The most recent capital cost estimate for
Phase I is $754,700,000 (escalated dollars). The cost estimate
includes final design, acquisition of right-of-way (ROW) and
rail vehicles, station construction, park and ride lots, and
construction of storage and maintenance facilities. The
corridor proposed to be used by TTA for the project is shared
among a number of railroads; thus, TTA is considering a number
of track realignments to accommodate proposed inter-city and
high-speed rail improvements. This project has been authorized
in TEA21. Through fiscal year 2002, $50,550,000 has been
appropriated for this project. The Committee has recommended
$15,000,000 in New Starts funding for this project in fiscal
year 2003.
St. Louis, Missouri, Metrolink St. Clair Extension
project.--The Bi-State Development Agency (Bi-State) is
developing a 26-mile extension of the Metrolink light rail line
from downtown East St. Louis, Illinois to the Mid-America
Airport in St. Clair County. A 17.4-mile Minimum Operable
Segment (MOS), extending from the current Metrolink terminal in
downtown East St. Louis to Belleville Area College (now known
as Southwest Illinois College), began revenue service in May
2001. This segment consists of 8 stations, 7 park-and-ride
lots, 20 new light rail vehicles, and a new maintenance
facility in East St. Louis. The route makes extensive use of
abandoned railroad rights-of-way. Right-of-way and real estate
acquisition is proceeding as scheduled, and revenue service is
scheduled to begin in 2001. The total capital cost of the St.
Clair MOS is estimated at $339,200,000. On October 17, 1996,
FTA and Bi-State entered into an FFGA that commits a total of
$243,930,000 in section 5309 New Starts funding to complete the
17.4-mile MOS to Southwest Illinois College, and provides for
extending the system to Mid-America Airport should funding
become available at a later date. The funding committed to the
MOS does not include $8,490,000 in Federal New Starts funding
provided prior to fiscal year 1996, which brings total Federal
funding for this project to $252,410,000 under the New Starts
program. Through fiscal year 2002, a total of $240,560,000 has
been appropriated for this project. The Committee has
recommended $3,000,000 in New Starts funding for this project
in fiscal year 2003.
Salt Lake City, Utah, CBD to University LRT project.--The
Utah Transit Authority (UTA) is implementing a 2.5-mile, 4-
station light rail line in eastern Salt Lake City, from the
downtown area to Rice-Eccles Stadium on the University of Utah
campus. The line would connect with the existing North/South
line at Main Street and travel east along 400 South and 500
South to the stadium. Light rail vehicles would operate on city
streets and property owned by Salt Lake City, the Utah
Department of Transportation, and the University. The line is
intended to significantly improve access to jobs, educational
opportunities, health care, and housing throughout the 400
South corridor. The CBD to University line is scaled back from
the originally proposed 10.9-mile West/East line from the
airport to the university. Total capital costs are estimated at
$118,500,000. FTA issued an FFGA for the CBD to University LRT
project on August 17, 2000, committing a total of $84,600,000
in section 5309 New Starts funds. This does not include
$4,960,000 appropriated for the project in prior years, but not
included in the FFGA scope. Through fiscal year 2002,
$20,800,000 in section 5309 New Starts funds has been
appropriated for this project. The Committee has recommended
$69,000,000 in New Starts funding for this project in fiscal
year 2003.
Salt Lake City, Utah, North-South LRT.--The Utah Transit
Authority (UTA) has completed construction of a 15-mile light
rail transit (LRT) line from downtown Salt Lake City to the
southern suburbs. The line opened for regular weekday service
on December 6, 1999. The system operates on city streets
downtown for 2 miles and then follows a lightly-used railroad
alignment owned by UTA to the suburban community of Sandy for
13 miles. This project is one component of the Interstate 15
corridor improvement initiative, which includes reconstruction
of a parallel segment of I-15. Though original ridership
projections for the South LRT system estimated daily ridership
at 14,000 daily passengers in 2000 and 23,000 passengers by
2010, current ridership averages 19,000 weekday passengers.
Total capital costs for this project were $312,490,000. For the
2002 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games, this project
connected major hotels and local residential areas with the
Olympic venues for figure skating, medal rounds for ice hockey,
and the International Broadcast Center, and connects with bus
service to venues for speed skating, curling, and the Nordic
alpine events. On August 2, 1995, FTA issued an FFGA for this
project that committed a total of $237,390,000 in Federal New
Starts funding. This does not include $6,600,000 in prior year
funds that were provided before the FFGA was issued, which
brings the total amount of section 5309 New Starts funding to
$243,990,000. A total of $236,678,000 has been appropriated
through fiscal year 2002; a shortfall remains totaling
$718,006. The Committee has recommended $1,000,000 in New
Starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2003.
Salt Lake City, Utah, University Medical Center LRT
extension project.--The Utah Transit Authority (UTA) provides
light rail service on two lines: the has completed construction
of a 15-mileNorth-South light rail transit (LRT) line from
Sandy City to downtown Salt Lake City to the southern suburbs.
The line opened for regular weekday service on December 6,
1999. The system operates on city streets downtown (2 miles)
and then follows a lightly used railroad alignment owned by UTA
to the suburban community of Sandy (13 miles). The University
light rail line operates on a A 2.5-mile alignment from
downtown Salt Lake City to Rice-Eccles stadium located at the
western edge of the University of Utah campus. The University
Medical Center and associated facilities constitute one of
Utah's largest traffic generation points. Significant ridership
will be served by this project, which will add 3 stations and
1.5 miles of track to the existing UTA LRT system, extending
from Rice-Eccles stadium to the University Medical Center.
Revenue operation date is projected for December 2004. FTA and
UTA signed an FFGA in May 2002 for $53,600,000 in section 5309
New Starts funds. The Committee has recommended $12,000,000 in
New Starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2003.
Salt Lake City, Utah, Salt Lake City-Ogden-Provo Commuter
Rail project.--The Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC) and
the Moutainlands Association of Governments (MAG) the two
metropolitan planning organizations that oversee transportation
planning for more than 85 percent of the State of Utah's
population, along with the Utah Transit Authority and the Utah
Department of Transportation, have completed an Inter-Regional
Corridor Alternatives Analysis study to evaluate transportation
improvements in a 120-mile corridor from Brigham City to
Payson. The corridor encompasses the Ogden, Salt Lake City and
Provo/Orem urbanized areas. The study evaluates highway and
transit alternatives in the corridor. WFRC and MAG completed a
Long-Range Transit Analysis in 1998, identifying commuter rail
as an effective means of serving the transportation demands in
the corridor between Brigham City and Payson. A commuter rail
line, with 12 stations, has been identified and evaluated and
subsequently included in the region's Long Range Transportation
Plan. Discussions are underway with the Union-Pacific Railroad
concerning the acquisition of railroad right-of-way to
implement commuter rail, light rail or other transportation
improvements. Total capital costs are estimated at
$587,000,000, with $272,000,000 for Ogden to Salt Lake City and
$315,000,000 for Salt Lake City to Provo. Through fiscal year
2002, Congress has appropriated $3,900,000 in section 5309 New
Starts funds for this effort. The Committee has recommended
$6,000,000 in New Starts funding for this project in fiscal
year 2003.
San Diego, California, Oceanside-Escondido Rail Corridor
project.--The North County Transit District (NCTD) in northern
San Diego County, California is planning to convert an existing
22-mile freight railroad corridor between Oceanside and
Escondido into a rail transit line. The line would run east
from the City of Oceanside through the cities of Vista and San
Marcos and unincorporated portions of San Diego County, to the
City of Escondido, using diesel multiple unit (DMU) rail
vehicles. The alignment also includes 1.7 miles of new right-
of-way to serve the campus of California State University San
Marcos (CSUSM). The line is located along the State Route 78
corridor, the principal east-west corridor in the county. The
complete 23.7-mile system will serve 15 stations, 4 of which
would be located at existing transit centers. Passenger rail
service would have exclusive use of the rail line during pre-
defined hours of operation. An Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) for the Oceanside-Escondido project was certified in
1990, and a separate EIR for the CSUSM alignment was certified
in 1991. A major investment study was not required under the
procedures in effect at the time, based on concurrence from
FTA, FHWA, the San Diego Association of Governments, Caltrans,
the City of San Marcos, and NCTD. Advance planning was
completed in December 1995, and the Environmental Assessment/
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report was completed in early
1997. FTA approved NCTD's request to enter final design in
February 2000. The total capital cost for this project is
estimated at $332,300,000, of which NCTD is seeking
$152,100,000 (46 percent) in FTA Sec. 5309 New Starts funds.
Ridership is estimated at 15,100 average weekday boardings in
2015, of which 8,600 would be daily new riders. Revenue
operations are scheduled to begin in January 2004. This project
will help to alleviate the heavy congestion of northern San
Diego County along the Route 78 corridor. The project will
serve large intermodal transit centers in both Oceanside and
Escondido, and the corridor between contains a dispersed mix of
commercial, industrial, and single-and multiple-family
residential developments. This project is rated ``medium-high''
for both finance and justification, earning an overall rating
of ``highly recommended.'' Section 3030(a)(77) of TEA21
authorized this project for final design and construction.
Through fiscal year 2002, Congress has appropriated $24,280,000
in section 5309 New Starts funds for this project. FTA
anticipates that NCTD will be ready for an FFGA for this
project by fall fiscal year 2003. The Committee has recommended
$20,000,000 in New Starts funding for this project in fiscal
year 2003.
San Diego, California, Mission Valley East LRT Extension
project.--The Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB) is
constructing a 5.9-mile, 4-station light rail extension of its
existing Blue Line, from east of Interstate 15 to the City of
La Mesa, where it will connect to the existing Orange Line near
Baltimore Drive. The Mission Valley East line will serve four
new and two existing stations, and would include elevated, at-
grade, and tunnel portions. The project includes two park and
ride lots and a new access road between Waring Road and the
Grantville Station. The corridor runs parallel to Interstate 8
in eastern San Diego and La Mesa, and is characterized by a mix
of low- to moderate-density industrial, residential, and
commercial uses, but includes several major activity centers
such as San Diego State University, the Grossmont regional
shopping center, Kaiser Hospital, the Alvarado Medical Center,
and the Grantville employment area. Over 24,000 jobs and nearly
10,000 residences are located within walking distance of the
proposed stations, and existing zoning is generally supportive
of transit. Total capital costs are estimated at $431,000,000.
On June 22, 2000, FTA issued an FFGA committing a total of
$329,960,000 in section 5309 New Starts funding to this
project. Through fiscal year 2002, Congress has appropriated
$112,720,000 for this project. The Committee has recommended
$65,000,000 in New Starts funding for this project in fiscal
year 2003.
San Francisco, California, BART Extension to SFO Airport
project.--Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) in San Francisco and
the San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) are
constructing an 8.7-mile, 4-station extension of the BART rapid
transit system to serve San Francisco International Airport
(SFO). The project consists of a 7.5-mile mainline extension
from the existing BART station at Colma, through Colma, south
San Francisco, and San Bruno, terminating at the Millbrae
Avenue BART/CalTrain Station. An additional 1.2-mile spur from
the main line north of Millbrae will take BART trains directly
into the airport, to a station adjoining the new International
Terminal. The San Francisco International Airport is a major
partner in this project. All structures and facilities to be
constructed on airport property, and installation of related
equipment, are being funded, designed and constructed by the
airport for BART. This project is also part of the FTA Turnkey
Demonstration Program to determine if the design/build approach
will reduce implementation time and cost. On July 24, 1997, the
first contract was awarded for site preparation and utility
relocation associated with this project. Bids for the main
contract for construction of the line, trackwork and related
systems were opened on November 25, 1997. On June 30, 1997, FTA
entered into an FFGA for the BART SFO extension, committing a
total of $750,000,000 in Federal New Starts funds to the
project; total capital costs at that time were estimated at
$1,054,000,000. The total cost has since increased to an
estimated $1,510,200,000; a recent surge in local construction
activity has resulted in higher than estimated costs for
construction of this project. Per the terms of the FFGA, any
cost increases are the responsibility of the local project
sponsors. Thus, the original Federal commitment is unchanged at
$750,000,000. Through fiscal year 2002, a total of $317,370,000
has been appropriated for this project. This project has been
authorized in TEA21. The Committee has recommended $100,000,000
in New Starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2003.
San Juan/Tren Urbano.--The Puerto Rico Department of
Transportation and Public Works (DTPW) is constructing a 10.7-
mile, 16-station rapid rail line between Bayamon Centro and the
Sagrado Corazon area of Santurce in the San Juan metropolitan
area. The system consists of a double-track line operating over
at-grade and elevated rights-of-way with a short below-grade
segment, and a maintenance facility. When complete, this system
is expected to carry 113,300 riders per day by 2010. This
project has been selected as one of FTA's turnkey demonstration
projects, which incorporates contracts to design, build,
operate, and maintain the system. During 1996 and 1997, seven
contracts were awarded under the turnkey procurement. The total
capital cost of this project is now estimated at
$1,653,600,000. On March 13, 1996, FTA entered into an FFGA
committing $307,410,000 in section 5309 New Starts funds to
this project, out of a total project cost of $1,250,000,000.
This did not include $4,960,000 in Federal New Starts funding
provided prior to fiscal year 1996, which brings total Federal
New Starts funding for this project to $312,370,000. This FFGA
was amended in July 1999 to include 2 additional stations and
10 additional railcars. This amendment included $141,000,000 in
section 5307 funds and $259,900,000 in flexible funding; no
additional section 5309 New Starts funds were committed. A
total of $193,560,000 in section 5309 funds has been allocated
to the Tren Urbano project through fiscal year 2002. The
Committee has recommended $45,000,000 in New Starts funding for
this project in fiscal year 2003.
Scranton, Pennsylvania, rail service to New York City.--
Morris, Sussex, and Warren Counties, all located in New Jersey,
in cooperation with the New Jersey TRANSIT Corporation (NJ
TRANSIT) conducted a Major Investment Study/Environmental
Assessment (MIS/EA) to examine the feasibility of re-
instituting rail service on the Lackawanna Cut-off Corridor
between Scranton, Pennsylvania and Hoboken, New Jersey. In
addition, in 1998, a planning study was undertaken by
Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania to preliminarily define the
State's portion of the project. Commuter rail was selected as
the locally preferred alternative. The potential rail service
would connect to the NJ TRANSIT Boonton Line at Port Morris in
Roxbury, New Jersey. Trains would operate to Hoboken and
connect to Midtown Direct trains traveling to New York's Penn
Station. The proposed project would include track and signal
improvements, new stations, parking facilities, train storage
yard, and rail equipment acquisition. Information on mobility
improvements, environmental benefits, cost effectiveness,
operating efficiencies, transit-supportive land use and other
factors are being developed. Through fiscal year 2002, Congress
has appropriated $990,000 in section 5309 New Starts funds for
this effort. These funds will be used for conceptual design and
completion of the EA. The Committee has recommended $3,000,000
in New Starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2003.
Seattle, Sound Transit Central Link Light Rail.--The
Committee takes note of the significant progress made by the
Federal Transit Administration and Sound Transit in addressing
the concerns about light rail developments in the Puget Sound
region raised by the Department of Transportation Inspector
General's Interim Report of April, 2001. Since that time, the
FTA and regional leaders have worked to make necessary
improvements in the project plans and in oversight of the
project. Sound Transit's Board of Directors in November, 2001
adopted a new initial segment for Central Link light rail. This
14-mile line will run from downtown Seattle in the north to
just north of Sea-Tac Airport. Sound Transit has implemented
management improvements which have improved its cost estimation
and financial management capabilities. The FTA has stepped-up
its oversight of the project as well. The Committee understands
that Sound Transit will request a FFGA for the same
$500,000,000 granted in 2001, but will seek to apply it to the
revised alignment. Through fiscal year 2003, Congress has
appropriated $90,970,000 for the project. The Committee
encourages the ongoing efforts of Sound Transit and the FTA and
looks forward to continuing to work with the FTA and Sound
Transit in addressing the Puget Sound region's significant
transit needs.
Stamford, Connecticut, urban transitway project.--The City
of Stamford, in coordination with the Connecticut Department of
Transportation (ConnDOT), and the Southwestern Regional
Planning Agency, is proposing to design and construct a 1-mile
Urban Transitway. This will consist of a bus lane, shared with
high occupancy vehicles, that will provide a direct link from
Interstate 95 to the Stamford Intermodal Transportation Center
(SITC). The Urban Transitway project will include changes to
the bus routes serving the SITC, improved pedestrian access,
and the implementation of intelligent transportation systems
(ITS). The SITC serves as a major transfer point for local bus
and employer shuttle service and provides access to existing
Amtrak and Metro-North rail service in the Northeast corridor.
Currently, Metro-North operates 190 daily trains that stop at
the SITC and approximately 2,500 riders use the service in the
peak hours to commute from Stamford to New York City, while
1,500 riders travel inbound to employment opportunities in
Stamford. To accommodate additional commuter capacity at the
SITC, the City is expanding rail platform capacity and
constructing a 1,200-space parking facility. This project has
been authorized in TEA21 under section 5309(e)(8)(A). Through
fiscal year 2002, Congress has appropriated $14,850,000 for
this project. The Committee has recommended $15,000,000 in New
Starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2003.
Stockton, California, Altamont Commuter Rail project.--The
San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission (SJRRC), the Alameda
Congestion Management Agency, and the Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority have implemented a commuter rail
system along an existing Union-Pacific Railroad right-of-way
between the three counties. A Joint Powers Board comprised of
members from each of the three agencies was also created to
operate the proposed Altamont Commuter Express. The SJRRC would
be the managing agency for the initial 36-month term of an
agreement executed between the three agencies. In addition to
identifying potential sources for capital and operating funds,
the member agencies will define the methods for allocating
future costs and the shares of future capital improvement
contributions from the member agencies. Through fiscal year
2002, Congress has appropriated $6,910,000 in section 5309 New
Starts funds for this effort. The Committee has recommended
$2,000,000 in New Starts funding for this project in fiscal
year 2003.
Job Access and Reverse Commute Grants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General fund Trust fund Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2002............................................ $25,000,000 $100,000,000 $125,000,000
Budget estimate, 2003........................................... 30,000,000 120,000,000 150,000,000
Committee recommendation........................................ 30,000,000 120,000,000 150,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends $150,000,000 for the Job Access
and Reverse Commute Grants program, the level guaranteed under
the TEA21 transit category firewall. This program is meant to
help welfare reform efforts succeed by providing enhanced
transportation services for low-income individuals, including
former welfare recipients, traveling to jobs or training
centers.
The program makes competitive grants to qualifying
metropolitan planning organizations, local governmental
authorities, agencies, and nonprofit organizations. Grants may
not be used for planning or coordination activities.
The Committee recommends the following allocations of job
access and reverse commute grant program funds in fiscal year
2003:
Project Amount
Alabama Jefferson County, JARC, AL...................... $4,000,000
Alaska Mobility Coalititon, AK.......................... 500,000
Allegheny Port Authority JARC, PA....................... 3,000,000
Austin Capital Metros Access to JARC, TX................ 3,000,000
CalWORKS Recipient Job Center, CA....................... 750,000
Capital District Transportation Authority, Albany, NY... 550,000
Central Ohio, Mobility Management, COTA, OH............. 600,000
Chatham JARC Program, GA................................ 550,000
Chautauqua Area Rural Transportation System, NY......... 100,000
Chemung County Transit, NY.............................. 150,000
Columbia, Expanded Service to Rural Welfare Recipients,
NY.................................................. 100,000
Connecticut, JARC, CT................................... 3,000,000
Corpus Christi JARC Program, TX......................... 750,000
Delaware Welfare to Work Initiative..................... 750,000
El Paso, JARC Program, TX............................... 500,000
Flint Job Access Program, MI............................ 750,000
Fort Wayne's Hanna Creighton Transit Center, IN......... 1,500,000
Franklin County Expansion of Hour Service, NY........... 150,000
Grand Rapids Reverse Commute Program, MI................ 675,000
Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority JARC, OH... 1,000,000
Hornell, Trans. Alternatives for Special Needs, NY...... 100,000
Illinois, Ways To Work.................................. 550,000
IndyGo Multi-use Downtown Transit Center, IN............ 550,000
Iowa Statewide JARC..................................... 2,000,000
Jackson-Josephine County JARC Project, OR............... 325,000
Jacksonville Trans. Authority, Choice Ride Program, FL.. 750,000
Kenai Peninsula, Transit Planning, AK................... 500,000
KW, Paratransit Vehicle Replacement, KS................. 60,000
LA County, UTRANS, CA................................... 1,000,000
Lafayette Ways to Work Program, LA...................... 200,000
Lakeville, MA Smart Growth Planning Initiative, MA...... 225,000
Lancaster-Littleton Transit Project, NH................. 100,000
Low-Income LIFT Program, SF MTC, CA..................... 2,000,000
LYNX, Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority,
FL.................................................. 400,000
Macon-Bibb County Reverse Commute Program, GA........... 550,000
Maricopa County Worklinks Project, AZ................... 500,000
Maryland Statewide JARC, (Montgomery County--$600,000).. 4,000,000
MASCOT Matanuska-Susitna Valley, AK..................... 200,000
Metrolink Corridor Access to Jobs, MO................... 3,000,000
Missouri Statewide JARC Grants, MO...................... 2,800,000
New Jersey JARC Program................................. 4,000,000
Northwest Ohio Commuter LINK, Toledo, OH................ 250,000
Oklahoma Statewide Access to Jobs Program............... 4,000,000
Oregon Ways to Work Loan Program........................ 500,000
Portland Metropolitan Region JARC Program, OR........... 1,500,000
Rhode Island Deployment of Flexible Services............ 1,500,000
Rhode Island Statewide JARC............................. 2,000,000
Ride Share Program--MTA, CA............................. 750,000
Rochester-Genesseee Regional Transportation Authority,
NY.................................................. 400,000
SACOG, Sacramento Region JARC Projects, CA.............. 1,500,000
San Antonio, Access to Jobs Program, TX................. 925,000
Santa Clara Valley, Guaranteed Ride Home Program, CA.... 350,000
SEPTA JARC, PA.......................................... 3,500,000
Service for Ithaca, NY.................................. 150,000
Anchorage People Mover, AK.............................. 200,000
STEP-UP Job Access Project, Dayton, OH.................. 250,000
Valley Metro/RPTA Job Access Program, AZ................ 1,200,000
Wake County Transportation Services (WCTS) Expansion, NC 550,000
Ways to Work, Missouri.................................. 450,000
Ways to Work, Yakima, WA................................ 500,000
West Virginia Statewide, JARC, WV....................... 1,000,000
Wisconsin Statewide JARC................................ 4,000,000
WMATA JARC, VA.......................................... 1,750,000
WorkFirst transportation initiative, WA................. 3,500,000
Wyandotte Co. JARC, KS.................................. 1,750,000
SAINT LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
The Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (the
Corporation) is a wholly owned Government corporation
established by the Saint Lawrence Seaway Act of May 13, 1954.
The Corporation is responsible for the operation, maintenance,
and development of the United States portion of the Saint
Lawrence Seaway between Montreal and Lake Erie. The
Corporation's major priorities include: safety, reliability,
trade development, and management accountability.
Operations and Maintenance
(HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND)
Appropriations, 2002 \1\................................ $13,345,000
Budget estimate, 2003 \2\............................... 14,086,000
Committee recommendation................................ 13,345,000
\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $11,000 pursuant to section 349 of
Public Law 107-87 or reduction of $10,000 pursuant to section 1106 of
Public Law 107-117.
\2\ Excludes $702,000 CSRS/FEHB accruals.
Appropriations from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and
revenues from non-federal sources finances the operation and
maintenance of the Seaway for which the corporation is
responsible.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommendation includes $13,345,000 to fund
the operations and maintenance of the Corporation. The
Committee recommendation provides sufficient funding for the
Corporation's highest capital priorities and the projects
recommended by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers after its
survey and evaluation of the Corporation's lock and maintenance
practices. Based on independent security assessments, the
Corporation plans to implement additional security measures for
the Saint Lawrence Seaway in 2003. The Corporation anticipates
$820,000 in new and revised security measures.
The Committee notes the efforts made by the Saint Lawrence
Seaway Development Corporation to enhance the security of
Seaway infrastructure and maintain an open, yet secure
waterway. Following the events of September 11, 2001, the SLSDC
developed new security protocols that enhanced the security of
the locks and other critical infrastructure along the Seaway.
Additionally, in coordination with their Canadian counterparts,
the SLSDC conducted a vulnerability assessment and developed a
new Risk Assessment Inspection for certain high risk foreign-
flag vessels that met the needs of the United States but was
conducted while the vessel was in Canadian waters. The
Committee applauds these efforts and directs the SLSDC to
translate this information to the Transportation Security
Administration and provide a report to both the House and
Senate Appropriations Committees on the status of these
initiatives and any further recommendations that the TSA may
have to ensure consistent security initiatives are present to
protect and secure the nation's borders and waterways. Any such
recommendations should be appropriately noted the subsequent
fiscal year 2004 budget request.
RESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION
The Research and Special Programs Administration [RSPA] was
established by the Secretary of Transportation's organizational
changes dated July 20, 1977, and serves as a research,
analytical, and technical development arm of the Department for
multimodal research and development, as well as special
programs. Particular emphasis is given to pipeline
transportation and the transportation of hazardous cargo by all
modes. In 2003, resources are requested for the management and
execution of the Offices of Hazardous Materials Safety,
Emergency Transportation, Pipeline Safety, and program and
administrative support. Funds are also requested for the
emergency preparedness grants program. RSPA's two reimbursable
programs--Transportation Safety Institute [TSI] and the Volpe
National Transportation Systems Center [VNTSC]--support
research safety and security programs for all modes of
transportation.
Research and Special Programs
Appropriations, 2002 \1\ \2\............................ $37,279,000
Budget estimate, 2003 \3\ \4\........................... 38,391,000
Committee recommendation................................ 43,725,000
\1\ Does not reflect rescissions of $113,000 pursuant to Public Law 107-
87 and $97,000 pursuant to Public Law 107-117.
\2\ Does not reflect emergency supplemental funding of $2,500,000
pursuant to Public Law 107-117.
\3\ Does not include $5,987,000 in proposed new user fees.
\4\ Excludes CSRS/FEHB accruals of $1,316,000.
The Committee has provided a total of $44,378,000 for the
``Research and special programs'' account, which is the same as
the budget request.
The following table summarizes the Committee
recommendations:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
2002 enacted Fiscal year Committee
\1\ 2003 estimate recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hazardous materials safety...................................... $21,217,000 $23,079,000 $23,079,000
New hazardous materials user fees............................... .............. $5,987,000 ..............
(FTE)....................................................... (132) (136) (136)
Emergency transportation........................................ $1,897,000 $2,058,000 $2,058,000
(FTE)....................................................... (9) (10) (10)
Research and technology......................................... $2,784,000 $2,854,000 $2,854,000
(FTE)....................................................... (9) (9) (9)
Program and administrative support.............................. $11,381,000 $16,387,000 $15,734,000
(FTE)....................................................... (50) (60) (59)
-----------------------------------------------
Total, research and special programs...................... $37,279,000 $38,391,000 $43,725,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not reflect rescissions of $113,000 pursuant to Public Law 107-87 and $97,000 pursuant to Public Law
107-117.
\2\ Does not reflect emergency supplemental funding of $2,500,000 pursuant to Public Law 107-117.
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY
The Office of Hazardous Materials Safety [OHMS] administers
a nationwide program of safety regulations to fulfill the
Secretary's duty to protect the Nation from the risks to life,
health, and property that are inherent in the transportation of
hazardous materials by water, air, highway, and railroad. OHMS
plans, implements, and manages the hazardous materials
transportation program consisting of information systems,
research and analysis, inspection and enforcement, rulemaking
support, training and information dissemination, and emergency
procedures.
The Committee recommends $23,079,000 for hazardous
materials safety, which is the same as the budget request.
Hazardous Materials Registration Fee Increase.--The
Committee does not support the requested bill language to
increase the Hazardous Materials Registration Fee that would
result in an estimated additional collection of $6,000,000 in
fiscal year 2003. The intended purpose of this increase is to
finance part of the Hazardous Materials Safety Program. The
Committee has denied the use of industry assessed fees to fund
the Hazardous Materials Safety Program in the past and again
denies this request.
EMERGENCY TRANSPORTATION
Emergency transportation (ET) programs provide support to
the Secretary of Transportation for his statutory and
administrative responsibilities in the area of transportation
civil emergency preparedness and response. This program
develops and coordinates the Department's policies, plans, and
programs, in headquarters and the field to provide for
emergency preparedness.
ET is responsible for implementing the Transportation
Department's National Security Program initiatives, including
an assessment of the transportation implications of the
changing global threat. The Office also coordinates civil
emergency preparedness and response for transportation services
during national and regional emergencies, across the entire
continuum of crises, including natural catastrophes such as
earthquakes, hurricanes and tornados, and international and
domestic terrorism. The Office of Emergency Transportation
develops crisis management plans to mitigate disasters and
implements these plans nationally and regionally in an
emergency.
The Committee recommends $2,058,000 for emergency
transportation, which is the same as the budget request.
RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY
The Committee recommends $2,854,000 for the Office of
Research and Technology, which is the same as the budget
request. The funds provided will help the Department coordinate
and strengthen its responsibilities under TEA21, and will help
support the R&T organizational excellence strategy specified in
the Department's strategic plan, allow RSPA to support the
intergovernmental transportation research coordination
responsibilities of the National Science and Technology
Council, and support a limited intermodal research program.
The Committee supports the request for R&D planning. These
funds are used to conduct a diversity of activities of
fundamental importance to the Department and to help coordinate
transportation-related research throughout the Government. For
example, these funds are used to support technology transfer
and in particular to ensure that R&T advances made in the
international arena are made available to various modes within
the Department. These planning funds are the sole source for
longer-term, visionary R&T planning in the Department. In
addition, these funds are used to support research and
education planning that applies to all of the modes. Most
importantly, one of the key purposes of these funds is to
eliminate any duplication of research within the DOT.
PROGRAM AND ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT
The program support function provides legal, financial,
management, and administrative support to the operating offices
within RSPA. These support activities include executive
direction (Office of the Administrator), program and policy
support, civil rights and special programs, legal services and
support, and management and administration.
The Committee has provided $15,734,000 for program and
administrative support, which is consistent with the budget
request.
RESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS
Business Modernization.--Public Law 107-87 directed RSPA to
develop an Information Technology Strategic Plan outlining
improvements in information technology and business
modernization. In advance of this plan, the administration
requested $3,616,000 for IT infrastructure improvements and
identified RSPA's need to remedy its weak IT infrastructure as
its number one priority for fiscal year 2003. The Committee
supports the need to overhaul RSPA's Information Management
Program but remains exceedingly concerned by RSPA's inability
to develop a true Information Technology Strategic Plan that
identifies what RSPA's information needs are, identifies who
needs access to the information, and identifies the resulting
system infrastructure requirements.
The Strategic Plan, dated February 1, 2002, does none of
these things. It does, however, call for an additional
$3,500,000 dollars for further IT consulting expenses. The plan
also identifies $9,100,000 that will be necessary for software
development and hardware acquisition. The Committee disagrees
that this level of funding is necessary for either the
consulting costs or the IT infrastructure development. As such,
the Committee directs that no additional funds shall be
expended for consulting costs for this initiative and directs
RSPA to proceed with the hiring of their IT personnel. The
Committee approves the request for 10 positions and 7 FTEs for
information technology support. It is essential that RSPA hire
the appropriate technical expertise to allow them to develop a
true Strategic Information Technology Plan in house. The
Committee approves the request for $3,600,000 but directs RSPA
to provide a Strategic Information Technology Plan, of no more
than 15 pages, to both the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations by December 31, 2002. The Strategic Plan shall
be submitted prior to any IT expenditure beyond the hiring of
Information Technology Specialists. Within this Strategic Plan
RSPA should identify their infrastructure spending plan and
address information security.
New Full Time Equivalent Positions Request.--Within the
Administration's Personnel Compensation and Benefits request,
17 positions and 12 FTE's are requested. Of those personnel
requested, one position and one FTE is for an emergency
transportation military liaison position. This position is
currently filled with a military fellow provided by the
Department of Defense. While the Committee believes that a
military liaison is beneficial to the Office of Emergency
Transportation, funding should continue to be provided by the
Department of Defense.
Pipeline Safety
(PIPELINE SAFETY FUND)
(OILSPILL LIABILITY TRUST FUND)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pipeline
safety fund Trust fund Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2002 \1\........................................ $50,386,000 $7,864,000 $58,250,000
Budget estimate, 2003 \2\....................................... 56,385,000 7,472,000 63,857,000
Committee recommendation........................................ 56,385,000 7,472,000 63,857,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not reflect rescissions of $74,000 pursuant to Public Law 107-87 and $64,000 pursuant to Public Law 107-
117.
\2\ Excludes CSRS/FEHB accruals of $653,000.
The Research and Special Programs Administration is
responsible for the Department's Pipeline Safety Program.
Funding for the Office of Pipeline Safety is made available
from two primary sources: the pipeline safety fund, comprised
of user fees assessed on interstate pipeline operators; and the
oil spill liability trust fund, a revolving fund comprised of
an environmental tax on petroleum and oil spill damage recovery
payments. The Pipeline Safety Program promotes the safe,
reliable, and environmentally sound transportation of natural
gas and hazardous liquids by pipeline. This national program
regulates the design, construction, operation, maintenance, and
emergency response procedures pertaining to gas and hazardous
liquids pipeline systems and liquefied natural gas facilities.
Also included is research and development to support the
Pipeline Safety Program and grants-in-aid to State agencies
that conduct a qualified pipeline safety program and to others
who operate one-call programs.
The Committee's recommendation for the Federal pipeline
safety program generally supports, and is consistent with, the
key provisions of the Senate-passed version of the pipeline
safety reauthorization bill. The Committee recommends
$63,857,000 for the Department's Pipeline Safety Program, which
is consistent with the budget estimate. The bill specifies
that, of the total appropriation, $56,385,000 shall be from the
pipeline safety fund and $7,472,000 shall be from the oil spill
liability trust fund.
Enforcement of Consensus Guidelines.--The Office of
Pipeline Safety, the pipeline industry and various Federal
agencies are working to finalize consensus guidelines and
regulatory standards on the different security measures that
should be taken by critical pipeline facilities. The Committee
maintains that it is essential that OPS has sufficient legal
authorities to ensure compliance with either these guidelines
or standards. To that end, the Department's General Counsel
shall submit a report to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations before January 1, 2003, specifying the legal
authorities that OPS will use to bring either enforcement
actions or issue facility orders against any operator of a
critical pipeline facility that fails to comply with the OPS-
endorsed guidelines or consensus standards relevant to pipeline
security at different threat levels. The Counsel will also
assess the need for regulatory action in this area.
National Pipeline Safety and Operations Research
Consortium.--Within the funds provided for research and
development, the Committee encourages the administrator to
support the creation of a National Pipeline Safety and
Operations Research Consortium to increase the operational
efficiency and system safety of pipeline transportation for
both liquid and gas commodities. The Center will apply emerging
technologies to the pipeline industry to benefit both carriers
and pipeline customers to increase the physical safety and
integrity and productivity of the nation's pipeline network.
Research and development.--The Committee recommends
$3,970,000 for pipeline safety research, which is consistent
with the amount requested. Within the funds provided, $600,000
shall be used for airborne environmental laser mapping
technology research and engineering to support improved leak
detection, analysis, and response by Federal, State, and
industry pipeline safety officials.
Emergency Preparedness Grants
(EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUND)
Appropriations, 2002.................................... $200,000
Budget estimate, 2003................................... 200,000
Committee recommendation................................ 200,000
The hazardous materials transportation law (title 49 U.S.C.
5101 et seq.) requires RSPA to: (1) develop and implement a
reimbursable emergency preparedness grants program; (2) monitor
public sector emergency response training and planning and
provide technical assistance to States, territories, and Indian
tribes; and (3) develop and update periodically a national
training curriculum for emergency responders. These activities
are financed by receipts received from the hazardous materials
shipper and carrier registration fees, which are placed in the
emergency preparedness fund. The hazardous materials
transportation law provides permanent authorization for the
emergency preparedness fund for planning and training grants,
monitoring and technical assistance, and for administrative
expenses. An appropriation of $200,000 in budget authority,
also from the emergency preparedness fund, provides for the
training curriculum for emergency responders.
LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS
Bill language is included that limits the obligation of
emergency preparedness training grants to $14,300,000 in fiscal
year 2003.
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Salaries and Expenses
Appropriations, 2002 \1\ \2\............................ $50,614,000
Budget estimate, 2003 \2\ \3\........................... 57,421,000
Committee recommendation................................ 57,421,000
\1\ Does not reflect reductions of $108,000 pursuant to section 349 of
Public Law 107-87 and $93,000 pursuant to section 1106 of Public Law
107-117. Does not reflect emergency supplemental funding of $1,300,000
pursuant to Public Law 107-117.
\2\ Does not include reimbursements of $3,524,000 from FHWA, $2,000,000
from FTA, $2,000,000 from FAA; and $100,000 from NTSB.
\3\ Excludes CSRS/FEHB accruals of $2,532,000.
The Inspector General Act of 1978 established the Office of
Inspector General [OIG] as an independent and objective
organization, with a mission to: (1) conduct and supervise
audits and investigations relating to the programs and
operations of the Department; (2) provide leadership and
recommend policies designed to promote economy, efficiency, and
effectiveness in the administration of programs and operations;
(3) prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse; and (4) keep
the Secretary and Congress currently informed regarding
problems and deficiencies.
OIG is divided into two major functional units: the Office
of Assistant Inspector General for Auditing and the Office of
Assistant Inspector General for Investigations. The assistant
inspectors general for auditing and investigations are
supported by headquarters and regional staff.
The Committee recommends $57,421,000.
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD
Salaries and Expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crediting
Appropriation offsetting
collections
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2002 \1\............. $18,457,000 $950,000
Budget estimate, 2003 \2\............ 19,459,000 1,000,000
Committee recommendation............. 19,459,000 1,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not reflect reductions of $5,000 pursuant to section 349 of
Public Law 107-87 and $4,000 pursuant to section 1106 of Public Law
107-117.
\2\ Excludes $1,192,300 in CSRS retirement and FEHB accruals.
The Surface Transportation Board was created on January 1,
1996, by Public Law 104-88, the Interstate Commerce Commission
Termination Act of 1995 (ICCTA) . Consistent with the continued
trend toward less regulation of the surface transportation
industry, the ICCTA abolished the ICC, eliminated certain
functions that had previously been implemented by the ICC,
transferred core rail and certain other functions to the Board,
and transferred motor licensing and certain other motor
functions to DOT and are now being administered by FMCSA. The
Board is specifically responsible for the regulation of the
rail and pipeline industries and certain nonlicensing
regulation of motor carriers and water carriers. Moreover, the
Board, through its exemption authority, is able to promote
deregulation administratively on a case-by-case basis. Rail
reforms made by the Staggers Rail Act of 1980 also have been
continued.
The Committee has provided $19,459,000 for activities of
the Board. Included in the recommended amount is an estimated
$1,000,000 in fees to be collected, which will offset the
appropriated funding. The Board is authorized to credit the
fees collected to the appropriated amount as offsetting
collections reducing the general funds appropriation on a
dollar-for-dollar basis as the fees are received and collected.
The Committee's recommendation will fund a total of 145
full-time staff equivalent (FTE) positions, if the Board
collects the full $1,000,000 in user fees. Between now and
September 30, 2003, 46 percent of the Board's employees will be
eligible for voluntary retirement. The Committee encourages the
Board to move expeditiously in filling vacancies as retirements
occur in order to ensure that the oversight functions of the
Board are not compromised.
TITLE II--RELATED AGENCIES
ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD
Salaries and Expenses
Appropriations, 2002 \1\................................ $5,015,000
Budget estimate, 2003................................... 5,194,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,194,000
\1\ Does not include reduction of $146,000 pursuant to section 301 of
Public Law 106-113.
The Committee recommends $5,194,000 for the operations of
the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board,
the funding level requested by the administration.
The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance
Board (the Access Board) is the lead Federal Agency promoting
accessibility for all handicapped persons. The Access Board was
reauthorized in the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1992,
Public Law 102-569. Under this authorization, the Access
Board's functions are to ensure compliance with the
Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, and to develop guidelines
for and technical assistance to individuals and entities with
rights or duties under titles II and III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act. The Access Board establishes minimum
accessibility guidelines and requirements for public
accommodations and commercial facilities, transit facilities
and vehicles, State and local government facilities, children's
environments, and recreational facilities. The Access Board
also provides technical assistance to Government agencies,
public and private organizations, individuals, and businesses
on the removal of accessibility barriers.
The Committee's recommendation provides adequate funding to
support 32.8 FTE, 2 FTE more than the fiscal year 2000 staffing
level, consistent with the Board's budget request.
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD
Salaries and Expenses
Appropriations, 2002.................................... $68,650,000
Budget estimate, 2003................................... 70,480,000
Committee recommendation................................ 72,500,000
The Independent Safety Board Act of 1974 established the
National Transportation Safety Board [NTSB] as an independent
Federal agency to promote transportation safety by conducting
independent accident investigations. In addition, the act
authorizes the Board to make safety recommendations, conduct
safety studies, and oversee safety activities of other
Government agencies involved in transportation. The Board also
reviews appeals of adverse actions by the Department of
Transportation with respect to airmen and seamen certificates
and licenses.
The Board has no regulatory authority over the
transportation industry. Thus, its effectiveness depends on its
reputation for impartial and accurate accident reports,
realistic and feasible safety recommendations, and on public
confidence in its commitment to improving transportation
safety.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The bill includes $72,500,000 for the National
Transportation Safety Board. The Committee recommendation is
$3,850,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2002 and
$2,020,000 more than the budget request. The Committee notes
that the National Transportation Safety Board Amendments Act of
2000 (Public Law 106-424) requires the Board, among other
things, to provide the payment of true overtime for
investigators and to implement the financial management control
initiatives that were recommended by a private sector audit
firm last year. The Committee's recommendation includes
additional funding to annualize 25 new positions; provide true
overtime payment costs; to provide 24 additional FTE's; and, to
implement financial management programs. This is 13 more FTE's
than requested by the administration for the enhancement of
investigative staff.
TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS
The Committee concurs with the general provisions that
apply to the Department of Transportation and related agencies
as proposed in the budget, with some changes, deletions, and
additions. These are noted below:
Sec. 304. Modifies a requested provision to prohibit the
use of funds for the salaries and expenses to no more than 100
political and presidential appointees to the Department of
Transportation.
Sec. 316. Modifies a provision regarding the funding of
administrative expenses for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration and the Federal Highway Administration.
Sec. 318. Modifies a provision regarding funds made
available to Alaska or Hawaii for ferry boats, ferry terminals
and ferry passenger service.
Sec. 320. Includes a provision exempting a general aviation
airport with more than 300,000 annual operations from having to
accept scheduled passenger service provided that airport meets
specific conditions.
Sec. 322. Includes a provision permitting funds from Public
Law 106-69 and Public Law 106-346 for the Wilmington, Delaware
downtown corridor project shall be available for the
Wilmington, Delaware commuter rail improvements.
Sec. 324. Includes a provision transferring the operation
and maintenance of the instrument landing system at the Walnut
Ridge Regional Airport, Arkansas to the Federal Aviation
Administration.
Sec. 325. Includes a provision transferring the operation
and maintenance of the air traffic control tower at Williams
Gateway Airport, Arizona to the Federal Aviation
Administration.
Sec. 327. Includes a provision regarding a highway in
Alaska.
Sec. 329. Includes a provision which modifies section
1211(i) of Public Law 105-178 to define the Alameda Corridor
East and Southwest Passage, California high priority corridor.
Sec. 330. Provides $160,000,000 to the Secretary of
Transportation to make grants for surface transportation
projects. The Committee's recommendation represents a
$16,000,000 increase over the amount that was appropriated in
fiscal year 2002. Funds provided for this program for fiscal
year 2003 shall be available for the following activities:
Project Amount
Aberdeen, SD to Geneseo, ND Rail Repair Project......... $650,000
Adrian's Landing Urban Development Roadway Reallignment
Project, Hartford, CT............................... 5,000,000
Arkwright Connector, Spartanburg SC..................... 1,200,000
Aroostook County North-South Highways, ME............... 5,000,000
Baseline Road, Isabella, Nottawa, Deerfield, Union, MI.. 1,000,000
Bowling Green Riverfront Project, KY.................... 4,000,000
Bremerton, Ferry Exit Tunnel, WA........................ 3,000,000
Broomsfield Wadsworth Interchange, CO................... 4,000,000
Caraway Road Overpass Project, Jonesboro AR............. 3,000,000
Cedar Ave. Bus Rapid Transit Project, MN................ 3,000,000
Council Bluffs US-6 Study/Preliminary Design, IA........ 2,000,000
David L. Lawrence Convention Center, Riverfront Park,
Pittsburgh, PA...................................... 1,400,000
Dubuque Southwest Arterial, IA.......................... 3,000,000
East Chicago, Railroad Ave. Grade Crossing Separation,
IN.................................................. 3,000,000
Elkhart Underpass, IN................................... 4,000,000
Farrington Highway, HI.................................. 1,000,000
General Mitchell International Airport Passenger Rail
Station,
WI.................................................. 5,000,000
Hana Highway, HI........................................ 1,000,000
I-405 Corridor Tukwila to Lynnwood, WA.................. 2,500,000
John Wright Drive--Huntsville, AL....................... 6,600,000
Juneau Heliport, AK..................................... 2,000,000
Lenexa Prairie Star Expressway, KS...................... 3,000,000
Matanuska-Susitna Borough road improvements, AK......... 5,000,000
Main Ave. Bridge & Pedestrian/Bicycle Amenities, Fargo
ND.................................................. 3,000,000
Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway, Des Moines, IA......... 5,000,000
Missouri River Trail, ND................................ 2,000,000
Montpelier Downtown Redevelopment Project, VT........... 2,500,000
Old Dominion University Maglev Project, Norfolk, VA..... 2,000,000
Olympic Discovery Trail, WA............................. 1,000,000
Phalen Blvd. Project, St. Paul, MN...................... 5,000,000
Pierre Rail Bypass, SD.................................. 6,000,000
Portland, Safety Enhancement, ME........................ 1,000,000
Route 14 Truck Bypass Project, Huron, SD................ 2,350,000
Saddle Road improvements, HI............................ 4,000,000
South & East Beltway System Construction, NE............ 5,000,000
SR 67/605 in Saucier, MS................................ 5,000,000
SR-104/Hood Canal Bridge East Half Replacement, WA...... 2,000,000
SR-99/Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seattle Seawall Replacement,
WA.................................................. 2,500,000
St. Louis Major Arterial Road Improvement/Renovation, MO 4,000,000
Trunk Highway 610/10, Twin Cities, MN................... 3,000,000
Tucson Railroad Grade Crossing Project, AZ.............. 1,500,000
Tuscaloosa Downtown Revitalization Project, AL.......... 5,000,000
Umatilla Intermodal Facility, OR........................ 3,800,000
US-14 Expansion and Improvements, MN.................... 2,000,000
US-81 & Highway 30 Arterial Improvements, Columbus, NE.. 2,500,000
US-93, Westside Kalispell Bypass Project, MT............ 2,500,000
US-95, Worley to Mica, stage 2, ID...................... 7,000,000
WSU Composite Applications for Ferries, WA.............. 1,000,000
WV Route 9, Jefferson and Berkeley Counties, WV......... 10,000,000
Sec. 331. Includes a provision directing the Secretary of
Transportation to approve the use of national highway system
and surface transportation funds for construction of noise
barriers in Georgia.
Sec. 332. Modifies a provision from the fiscal year 2000
appropriations act which prohibits the use of funds in this Act
unless the Secretary of Transportation notifies the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations not less than 3 full
business days before any discretionary grant award is made
under section 1221 of Public Law 107-178 as amended, and before
any award totaling $500,000 or more is announced by the
Department or its modal administrations. The administration
proposed deleting this provision.
Sec. 333. Includes a provision naming buildings at the
William J. Hughes Technical Center as the ``Frank R. Lautenberg
Aviation Security Complex.''
Sec. 334. Includes a provision requiring a National Academy
of Sciences study regarding the shipment of spent nuclear fuel
from research nuclear reactors.
Sec. 336. Includes a provision which would reimburse the
city of Escanaba, Michigan for the costs incurred for repairing
a municipal dock that is utilized by the United States Coast
Guard.
Sec. 337. Includes a provision permitting newly designated
urbanized areas as a result of the 2000 decennial census to use
FTA funds for operating costs in the same amount that was
provided in fiscal year 2002. This provision applies for fiscal
year 2003 only.
Sec. 339. Includes a provision allowing grants for the
construction of an air traffic control tower at Double Eagle II
Airport, New Mexico.
Sec. 340. Modifies a provision from a previous
appropriations act permitting Section 402 funds to be used to
produce and place highway safety messages on paid media outlets
and designating certain Section 157 and Section 410 funds for
paid media to support national law enforcement mobilizations on
seat belt use and impaired driving.
Sec. 341. Modifies a provision from the fiscal year 2002
appropriations act regarding Coast Guard Yard in Curtis Bay,
Maryland and other Coast Guard specialized facilities. The
administration proposed deleting this provision.
Sec. 342. Retains a provision prohibiting funds for the
Office of the Secretary of Transportation to be reprogrammed
without Congressional notification. The administration proposed
deleting this provision.
Sec. 343. Includes a provision regarding Federal share for
certain highway funds.
Sec. 344. Includes a provision regarding the Hoover Dam
Bypass Bridge.
Sec. 346. Retains a provision allowing discretionary bridge
funding to be used for historic covered bridges. The
administration proposed deleting this provision.
Sec. 347. Modifies a provision requiring quarterly reports
on major Coast Guard acquisition and mission hour emphasis. The
administration proposed deleting this provision.
Sec. 348. Includes a provision amending Section 1503 and
Section 1101(a)(9) of Public Law 105-178.
Sec. 349. Includes a provision regarding safety which the
administration had requested be deleted that reduces the funds
provided for the Transportation Administrative Service Center.
Sec. 350. Extends a provision from the fiscal year 2002
appropriations act regarding the safety of cross-border
trucking between the United States and Mexico. The
administration proposed deleting this provision.
Sec. 351. Includes a provision making capital funds
available for FAA facilities and equipment.
Sec. 352. Includes a provision which expands the exemption
from Federal axle weight restrictions presently applicable only
to public transit buses to all over-the-road buses.
Sec. 353. Includes a provision regarding funds for the
construction of roads and bridges in Lake Charles, Louisiana.
Sec. 354. Includes a provision regarding a rescission in
the Fiscal Year 2002 Supplemental Appropriations Act for
Further Recovery From and Response To Terrorist Attacks on the
United States.
COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7, RULE XVI OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE
Paragraph 7 of rule XVI requires that Committee reports
accompanying general appropriations bills identify each
recommended amendment which proposes an item of appropriation
which is not made to carry out the provisions of an existing
law, a treaty stipulation, or an act or resolution previously
passed by the Senate during that session.
Coast Guard
Operating Expenses
Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements
Environmental Compliance and Restoration
Alteration of Bridges
Reserve Training
Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation
Federal Aviation Administration
Office of Commercial Space Transportation
Research, Engineering, and Development
Federal Highway Administration
Child Passenger Protection Education Grants
Federal Railroad Administration
Safety and Operations
National Railroad Passenger Corporation (AMTRAK)
National Transportation Safety Board
COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7(C), RULE XXVI, OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE
Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, on July 25, 2002,
the Committee ordered reported en bloc, S. 2801, an original
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration,
and Related Agencies Programs Appropriations bill, 2003; S.
2809, an original District of Columbia Appropriations bill,
2003; S. 2808, an original Transportation and Related Agencies
Appropriations bill, 2003; and S. 2797, an original Veterans
Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent
Agencies Appropriations bill, 2003, each subject to amendment
and each subject to the budget allocations, by a recorded vote
of 29-0, a quorum being present. The vote was as follows:
Yeas Nays
Chairman Byrd
Mr. Inouye
Mr. Hollings
Mr. Leahy
Mr. Harkin
Ms. Mikulski
Mr. Reid
Mr. Kohl
Mrs. Murray
Mr. Dorgan
Mrs. Feinstein
Mr. Durbin
Mr. Johnson
Ms. Landrieu
Mr. Reed
Mr. Stevens
Mr. Cochran
Mr. Specter
Mr. Domenici
Mr. Bond
Mr. McConnell
Mr. Burns
Mr. Shelby
Mr. Gregg
Mr. Bennett
Mr. Campbell
Mr. Craig
Mrs. Hutchison
Mr. DeWine
COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 12, RULE XXVI OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE
Paragraph 12 of rule XXVI requires that Committee reports
on a bill or joint resolution repealing or amending any statute
or part of any statute include ``(a) the text of the statute or
part thereof which is proposed to be repealed; and (b) a
comparative print of that part of the bill or joint resolution
making the amendment and of the statute or part thereof
proposed to be amended, showing by stricken-through type and
italics, parallel columns, or other appropriate typographical
devices the omissions and insertions which would be made by the
bill or joint resolution if enacted in the form recommended by
the committee.''
In compliance with this rule, the following changes in
existing law proposed to be made by the bill are shown as
follows: existing law to be omitted is enclosed in black
brackets; new matter is printed in italic; and existing law in
which no change is proposed is shown in roman.
With respect to this bill, it is the opinion of the
Committee that it is necessary to dispense with these
requirements in order to expedite the business of the Senate.
BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL
PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC. 308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93-344, AS
AMENDED
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget authority Outlays
---------------------------------------------------------
Committee Amount of Committee Amount of
allocation \1\ bill allocation \1\ bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee
allocations to its subcommittees, fiscal year 2003:
Subcommittee on Transportation and Related Agencies:
Discretionary..................................... 21,300 21,300 62,101 \2\ 59,879
Mandatory......................................... NA -117 NA 854
Projections of outlays associated with the
recommendation:
2003.............................................. .............. ........... .............. \3\ 23,449
2004.............................................. .............. ........... .............. 21,362
2005.............................................. .............. ........... .............. 8,579
2006.............................................. .............. ........... .............. 3,817
2007 and future year.............................. .............. ........... .............. 4,979
Financial assistance to State and local governments NA 1,978 NA 9,995
for 2003............................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Levels approved by the Committee on June 27, as modified on July 25, 2002.
\2\ Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
\3\ Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
NA: Not applicable.
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2003
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate Committee recommendation
compared with (+ or -)
Item 2002 Budget estimate Committee -----------------------------------
appropriation recommendation 2002
appropriation Budget estimate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary
Salaries and expenses......................................... 67,778 92,460 73,069 +5,291 -19,391
Immediate Office of the Secretary......................... (1,929) ................ (2,034) (+105) (+2,034)
Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary.................. (619) ................ (619) ................ (+619)
Immediate Office of the Secretary and Deputy Secretary.... ................ (4,411) ................ ................ (-4,411)
Office of the General Counsel............................. (13,355) (15,657) (13,828) (+473) (-1,829)
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy.............. (3,058) ................ (3,058) ................ (+3,058)
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and (7,421) ................ (7,471) (+50) (+7,471)
International Affairs....................................
Office of the Under Secretary for Transportation Policy... ................ (12,453) ................ ................ (-12,453)
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs. (7,728) (8,375) (7,668) (-60) (-707)
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs (2,282) (2,453) (2,282) ................ (-171)
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration...... (19,250) (29,285) (20,380) (+1,130) (-8,905)
Office of Public Affairs.................................. (1,723) (1,926) (1,723) ................ (-203)
Executive Secretariat..................................... (1,204) ................ (1,204) ................ (+1,204)
Board of Contract Appeals................................. (507) (611) (507) ................ (-104)
Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization.... (1,240) (1,304) (1,304) (+64) ................
Office of Intelligence and Security....................... (1,321) ................ ................ (-1,321) ................
Office of the Chief Information Officer................... (6,141) (15,987) (10,991) (+4,850) (-4,996)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................ (67,778) (92,462) (73,069) (+5,291) (-19,393)
Office of Civil Rights........................................ 8,500 8,700 8,700 +200 ................
Transportation Security Administration........................ 1,250,000 ................ ................ -1,250,000 ................
Offsetting collections.................................... -1,250,000 ................ ................ +1,250,000 ................
Transportation planning, research, and development............ 11,993 10,700 21,000 +9,007 +10,300
Transportation Administrative Service Center.................. (125,323) (131,779) (131,779) (+6,456) ................
Minority business resource center program..................... 900 900 900 ................ ................
(Limitation on guaranteed loans).......................... (18,367) (18,367) (18,367) ................ ................
Minority business outreach.................................... 3,000 3,000 3,000 ................ ................
New headquarters building..................................... ................ 25,000 ................ ................ -25,000
Small community air service development pilot program......... 20,000 ................ ................ -20,000 ................
Payments to air carriers (Airport & Airway Trust Fund)........ 13,000 ................ 65,000 +52,000 +65,000
Emergency supplemental.................................... 50,000 ................ ................ -50,000 ................
=========================================================================================
Total, Office of the Secretary.......................... 1,425,171 140,760 171,669 -1,253,502 +30,909
Rescission.......................................... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
Offsetting collections.............................. -1,250,000 ................ ................ +1,250,000 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net total......................................... 175,171 140,760 171,669 -3,502 +30,909
Transportation Security Administration
Salaries and expenses......................................... ................ 4,800,000 4,950,000 +4,950,000 +150,000
Offsetting collections.................................... ................ -2,774,000 -2,774,000 -2,774,000 ................
Emergency supplemental.................................... 94,800 ................ ................ -94,800 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................................... 94,800 2,026,000 2,176,000 +2,081,200 +150,000
Coast Guard
Operating expenses............................................ 2,942,000 3,978,456 3,678,456 +736,456 -300,000
(By transfer)......................................... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
Defense function.......................................... 440,000 340,000 340,000 -100,000 ................
Offset for new user fees.................................. ................ -165,000 ................ ................ +165,000
Emergency supplemental.................................... 209,150 ................ ................ -209,150 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................ 3,591,150 4,153,456 4,018,456 +427,306 -135,000
Acquisition, construction, and improvements................... 636,354 725,000 725,000 +88,646 ................
Vessels................................................... (89,640) (13,600) (13,600) (-76,040) ................
Aircraft.................................................. (9,500) ................ ................ (-9,500) ................
Other equipment........................................... (79,293) (117,700) (117,700) (+38,407) ................
Shore facilities & aids to navigation facilities.......... (73,100) (28,700) (48,700) (-24,400) (+20,000)
Personnel and related support............................. (64,631) (65,000) (65,000) (+369) ................
Integrated Deepwater Systems.............................. (320,190) (500,000) (480,000) (+159,810) (-20,000)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, AC&I.......................................... (636,354) (725,000) (725,000) (+88,646) ................
Environmental compliance and restoration...................... 16,927 17,000 17,000 +73 ................
Alteration of bridges......................................... 15,466 ................ 14,000 -1,466 +14,000
Retired pay................................................... 876,346 889,000 889,000 +12,654 ................
Reserve training.............................................. 83,194 86,522 86,522 +3,328 ................
Research, development, test, and evaluation................... 20,222 22,000 22,000 +1,778 ................
=========================================================================================
Total, Coast Guard...................................... 5,239,659 6,057,978 5,771,978 +532,319 -286,000
(By transfer)................................... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
Offset for new user fees............................ ................ -165,000 ................ ................ +165,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net total......................................... 5,239,659 5,892,978 5,771,978 +532,319 -121,000
Federal Aviation Administration
Operations.................................................... 6,886,000 7,077,203 7,081,203 +195,203 +4,000
Air traffic services...................................... (5,452,871) ................ (5,696,037) (+243,166) (+5,696,037)
Aviation regulation and certification..................... (768,769) ................ (839,467) (+70,698) (+839,467)
Civil aviation security................................... (150,154) ................ ................ (-150,154) ................
Research and acquisition.................................. (195,799) ................ (207,600) (+11,801) (+207,600)
Commercial space transportation........................... (12,456) ................ (12,325) (-131) (+12,325)
Financial services........................................ (50,284) ................ (48,782) (-1,502) (+48,782)
Human resources........................................... (69,516) ................ (80,260) (+10,744) (+80,260)
Regional coordination..................................... (85,943) ................ (82,192) (-3,751) (+82,192)
Staff offices............................................. (109,208) ................ (114,540) (+5,332) (+114,540)
Undistributed............................................. (-9,000) ................ ................ (+9,000) ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................ (6,886,000) ................ (7,081,203) (+195,203) (+7,081,203)
Emergency supplemental.................................... 200,000 ................ ................ -200,000 ................
Facilities & equipment (Airport & Airway Trust Fund).......... 2,914,000 2,981,022 2,981,022 +67,022 ................
Rescission (Airport and Airway Trust Fund)................ -15,000 ................ ................ +15,000 ................
Emergency supplemental.................................... 108,500 ................ ................ -108,500 ................
Research, engineering, and development (Airport and Airway 195,000 124,000 124,000 -71,000 ................
Trust Fund)..................................................
Emergency supplemental.................................... 50,000 ................ ................ -50,000 ................
Grants-in-aid for airports (Airport and Airway Trust Fund):
(Liquidation of contract authorization)................... (1,800,000) (3,100,000) (3,100,000) (+1,300,000) ................
(Limitation on obligations)............................... (3,300,000) (3,400,000) (3,400,000) (+100,000) ................
Rescission of contract authorization...................... -301,720 ................ ................ +301,720 ................
Emergency supplemental.................................... 175,000 ................ ................ -175,000 ................
Small community air service pilot program(non-add)........ (20,000) ................ (20,000) ................ (+20,000)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net subtotal............................................ (3,173,280) (3,400,000) (3,400,000) (+226,720) ................
Aviation insurance revolving fund............................. ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
Essential air service (by transfer)........................... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
=========================================================================================
Total, Federal Aviation Administration.................. 10,528,500 10,182,225 10,186,225 -342,275 +4,000
(Limitations on obligations)........................ (3,300,000) (3,400,000) (3,400,000) (+100,000) ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total budgetary resources......................... (13,828,500) (13,582,225) (13,586,225) (-242,275) (+4,000)
Rescissions......................................... -316,720 ................ ................ +316,720 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net total......................................... (13,511,780) (13,582,225) (13,586,225) (+74,445) (+4,000)
Federal Highway Administration
Limitation on administrative expenses......................... (311,000) (317,732) (317,732) (+6,732) ................
Federal-aid highways (Highway Trust Fund): \1\
(Limitation on obligations)............................... (27,280,000) (27,537,787) (31,800,000) (+4,520,000) (+4,262,213)
Revenue aligned budget authority (RABA)................... (4,543,000) (-4,369,000) ................ (-4,543,000) (+4,369,000)
RABA transfer to FMCSA.................................... (-23,896) ................ ................ (+23,896) ................
Border enforcement program (non-add).......................... ................ ................ (106,967) (+106,967) (+106,967)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, limitation on obligations..................... (31,799,104) (23,168,787) (31,800,000) (+896) (+8,631,213)
(Exempt obligations)...................................... (965,308) (892,767) (892,767) (-72,541) ................
(Liquidation of contract authorization)................... (30,000,000) (29,000,000) (32,000,000) (+2,000,000) (+3,000,000)
Appalachian development highway system........................ 200,000 ................ 200,000 ................ +200,000
State infrastructure banks (rescission)....................... -5,750 ................ ................ +5,750 ................
Value pricing project (rescission) (Highway Trust Fund) (sec. -9,231 ................ ................ +9,231 ................
318).........................................................
TIFIA (rescission) (Highway Trust Fund) (sec. 318)............ -43,742 ................ ................ +43,742 ................
Miscellaneous appropriations (Highway Trust Fund) (emergency 100,000 ................ ................ -100,000 ................
supplemental)................................................
Emergency relief program (emergency supplemental)............. 75,000 ................ ................ -75,000 ................
=========================================================================================
Total, Federal Highway Administration................... 375,000 ................ 200,000 -175,000 +200,000
(Limitations on obligations)........................ (31,799,104) (23,168,787) (31,800,000) (+896) (+8,631,213)
(Exempt obligations)................................ (965,308) (892,767) (892,767) (-72,541) ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total budgetary resources......................... (33,139,412) (24,061,554) (32,892,767) (-246,645) (+8,831,213)
Rescissions......................................... -58,723 ................ ................ +58,723 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net total......................................... (33,080,689) (24,061,554) (32,892,767) (-187,922) (+8,831,213)
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Motor carrier safety (limitation on administrative expenses) (110,000) (114,464) (114,464) (+4,464) ................
(limitation on obligations)..................................
Rescission................................................ -6,665 ................ ................ +6,665 ................
National motor carrier safety program (Highway Trust Fund):
(Liquidation of contract authorization)................... (205,896) (190,000) (190,000) (-15,896) ................
(Limitation on obligations)............................... (182,000) (190,000) (190,000) (+8,000) ................
RABA transfer from FHWA:
Border-State grants................................... (18,000) ................ ................ (-18,000) ................
State commercial driver's license..................... (5,896) ................ ................ (-5,896) ................
Motor carrier safety assistance grants................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, RABA...................................... (23,896) ................ ................ (-23,896) ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, limitation on obligations................. (205,896) (190,000) (190,000) (-15,896) ................
Border enforcement program (Highway Trust Fund)............... 25,866 59,967 ................ -25,866 -59,967
=========================================================================================
Total, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Admin............... 25,866 59,967 ................ -25,866 -59,967
(Limitations on obligations)........................ (315,896) (304,464) (304,464) (-11,432) ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total budgetary resources......................... (341,762) (364,431) (304,464) (-37,298) (-59,967)
Rescissions......................................... -6,665 ................ ................ +6,665 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net total......................................... (335,097) (364,431) (304,464) (-30,633) (-59,967)
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Operations and research....................................... 127,780 126,445 141,000 +13,220 +14,555
Operations and research (Highway trust fund):
(Liquidation of contract authorization)................... (72,000) (72,000) (72,000) ................ ................
(Limitation on obligations)............................... (72,000) (72,000) (72,000) ................ ................
Rescission of contract authority.......................... -1,516 ................ ................ +1,516 ................
National Driver Register (Highway trust fund)................. 2,000 2,000 2,000 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Operations and research....................... (200,264) (200,445) (215,000) (+14,736) (+14,555)
Highway traffic safety grants (Highway Trust Fund):
(Liquidation of contract authorization)................... (223,000) (225,000) (225,000) (+2,000) ................
(Limitation on obligations):
Highway safety programs (Sec. 402).................... (160,000) (165,000) (165,000) (+5,000) ................
Occupant protection incentive grants (Sec. 405)....... (15,000) (20,000) (20,000) (+5,000) ................
Alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures grants (Sec. (38,000) (40,000) (40,000) (+2,000) ................
410).................................................
State highway safety data grants (Sec. 411)........... (10,000) ................ ................ (-10,000) ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, limitation on obligations................. (223,000) (225,000) (225,000) (+2,000) ................
=========================================================================================
Total, National Highway Traffic Safety Admin........ 129,780 128,445 143,000 +13,220 +14,555
(Limitations on obligations).................... (295,000) (297,000) (297,000) (+2,000) ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total budgetary resources..................... (424,780) (425,445) (440,000) (+15,220) (+14,555)
Rescissions..................................... -1,516 ................ ................ +1,516 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net total..................................... (423,264) (425,445) (440,000) (+16,736) (+14,555)
Federal Railroad Administration
Safety and operations......................................... 110,857 118,264 118,264 +7,407 ................
Offset for new user fees.................................. ................ -45,000 ................ ................ +45,000
Emergency supplemental.................................... 6,000 ................ ................ -6,000 ................
Railroad research and development............................. 29,000 28,325 29,325 +325 +1,000
Offset for new user fees.................................. ................ -14,000 ................ ................ +14,000
Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment project (advance 20,000 20,000 20,000 ................ ................
appropriations, fiscal year 2001, fiscal year 2002, fiscal
year 2003)...................................................
Next generation high-speed rail............................... 32,300 23,200 30,000 -2,300 +6,800
Alaska Railroad rehabilitation................................ 20,000 ................ 25,000 +5,000 +25,000
Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation......... 521,476 521,476 1,200,000 +678,524 +678,524
Emergency supplemental.................................... 100,000 ................ ................ -100,000 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Federal Railroad Administration.................. 839,633 711,265 1,422,589 +582,956 +711,324
Offset for new user fees............................ ................ -59,000 ................ ................ +59,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net total......................................... 839,633 652,265 1,422,589 +582,956 +770,324
Federal Transit Administration
Administrative expenses....................................... 13,400 14,600 14,600 +1,200 ................
Administrative expenses (Highway Trust Fund, Mass Transit (53,600) (58,400) (58,400) (+4,800) ................
Account) (limitation on obligations).........................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Administrative expenses....................... (67,000) (73,000) (73,000) (+6,000) ................
Formula grants................................................ 718,400 767,800 767,800 +49,400 ................
Emergency supplemental.................................... 23,500 ................ ................ -23,500 ................
Formula grants (Highway Trust Fund) (limitation on (2,873,600) (3,071,200) (3,071,200) (+197,600) ................
obligations).................................................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Formula grants................................ (3,615,500) (3,839,000) (3,839,000) (+223,500) ................
University transportation research............................ 1,200 1,200 1,200 ................ ................
University transportation research (Highway Trust Fund, Mass (4,800) (4,800) (4,800) ................ ................
Transit Acct) (limitation on obligations)....................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, University transportation research............ (6,000) (6,000) (6,000) ................ ................
Transit planning and research................................. 23,000 24,200 24,200 +1,200 ................
Transit planning and research (Highway Trust Fund, Mass (93,000) (97,800) (97,800) (+4,800) ................
Transit Account) (limitation on obligations).................
Flexible funding.......................................... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Transit planning and research................. (116,000) (122,000) (122,000) (+6,000) ................
Rural transportation assistance........................... (5,250) (5,250) (5,250) ................ ................
National Transit Institute................................ (4,000) (4,000) (4,000) ................ ................
Transit cooperative research.............................. (8,250) (8,250) (8,250) ................ ................
Metropolitan planning..................................... (55,422) (60,386) (60,386) (+4,964) ................
State planning............................................ (11,578) (12,614) (12,614) (+1,036) ................
National planning and research............................ (31,500) (31,500) (31,500) ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................ (116,000) (122,000) (122,000) (+6,000) ................
Trust fund share of expenses (Highway Trust Fund) (liquidation (5,397,800) (5,781,000) (5,781,000) (+383,200) ................
of contract authorization)...................................
Capital investment grants..................................... 568,200 607,200 607,200 +39,000 ................
Capital investment grants (General purpose)................... ................ ................ 100,000 +100,000 +100,000
Emergency supplemental.................................... 100,000 ................ ................ -100,000 ................
Capital investment grants (Highway Trust Fund, Mass Transit (2,272,800) (2,428,800) (2,428,800) (+156,000) ................
Account) (limitation on obligations).........................
Flexible funding.......................................... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Capital investment grants..................... (2,941,000) (3,036,000) (3,136,000) (+195,000) (+100,000)
Fixed guideway modernization.............................. (1,136,400) (1,214,400) (1,214,400) (+78,000) ................
Buses and bus-related facilities.......................... (568,200) (607,200) (607,200) (+39,000) ................
New starts................................................ (1,136,400) (1,214,400) (1,214,400) (+78,000) ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................ (2,841,000) (3,036,000) (3,036,000) (+195,000) ................
Job access and reverse commute grants......................... 25,000 30,000 30,000 +5,000 ................
(Highway Trust Fund, Mass Transit Account) (limitation on (100,000) (120,000) (120,000) (+20,000) ................
obligations).............................................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Job access and reverse commute grants......... (125,000) (150,000) (150,000) (+25,000) ................
=========================================================================================
Total, Federal Transit Administration................... 1,472,700 1,445,000 1,545,000 +72,300 +100,000
(Limitations on obligations)........................ (5,397,800) (5,781,000) (5,781,000) (+383,200) ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total budgetary resources......................... (6,870,500) (7,226,000) (7,326,000) (+455,500) (+100,000)
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation
Operations and maintenance (Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund).... 13,345 14,086 13,345 ................ -741
Research and Special Programs Administration
Research and special programs:
Hazardous materials safety................................ 21,217 23,079 23,079 +1,862 ................
Offset for new user fees.................................. ................ -6,000 ................ ................ +6,000
Emergency transportation.................................. 1,897 2,058 2,058 +161 ................
Research and technology................................... 2,784 2,854 2,854 +70 ................
Program and administrative support........................ 11,381 16,387 15,734 +4,353 -653
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, research and special programs................. 37,279 38,378 43,725 +6,446 +5,347
Emergency supplemental (emergency trans).................. 2,500 ................ ................ -2,500 ................
Pipeline safety:
Pipeline Safety Fund...................................... 50,386 56,385 56,385 +5,999 ................
Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund............................ 7,864 7,472 7,472 -392 ................
Pipeline safety reserve................................... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Pipeline safety program (incl reserve)........ 58,250 63,857 63,857 +5,607 ................
Emergency preparedness grants:
Emergency preparedness fund............................... 200 200 200 ................ ................
Limitation on emergency preparedness fund................. (14,300) (14,300) (14,300) ................ ................
=========================================================================================
Total, Research and Special Programs Admin.............. 98,229 108,435 107,782 +9,553 -653
Rescission.......................................... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net total......................................... 98,229 108,435 107,782 +9,553 -653
Office of Inspector General
Salaries and expenses......................................... 50,614 57,421 57,421 +6,807 ................
Emergency supplemental.................................... 1,300 ................ ................ -1,300 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................................... 51,914 57,421 57,421 +5,507 ................
Surface Transportation Board
Salaries and expenses......................................... 18,457 19,459 19,459 +1,002 ................
Offsetting collections.................................... -950 -1,000 -1,000 -50 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................................... 17,507 18,459 18,459 +952 ................
Bureau of Transportation Statistics
Office of Airline Information (Airport & Airway Trust Fund)... ................ 3,965 ................ ................ -3,965
General Provisions
Amtrak Reform Council (Sec. 329).............................. 225 ................ ................ -225 ................
Alaska highway obligation adjustment.......................... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
Surface transportation projects (sec. 330) (sec. 1106)........ 148,300 ................ 160,000 +11,700 +160,000
Restoration of contract authorization (Sec. ____)............. ................ ................ 200,000 +200,000 +200,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, General provisions............................... 148,525 ................ 360,000 +211,475 +360,000
=========================================================================================
Net total, title I, Department of Transportation........ 18,827,005 20,724,006 22,173,468 +3,346,463 +1,449,462
Appropriations...................................... (17,914,879) (20,724,006) (22,173,468) (+4,258,589) (+1,449,462)
Emergency........................................... (1,295,750) ................ ................ (-1,295,750) ................
Offset for new user fees............................ (-1,250,000) (-230,000) ................ (+1,250,000) (+230,000)
Rescission of contract authority.................... (-303,236) ................ ................ (+303,236) ................
(By transfer)....................................... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
(Limitations on obligations)........................ (41,107,800) (32,951,251) (41,582,464) (+474,664) (+8,631,213)
(Exempt obligations)................................ (965,308) (892,767) (892,767) (-72,541) ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net total budgetary resources..................... (60,900,113) (54,568,024) (64,648,699) (+3,748,586) (+10,080,675)
=========================================================================================
TITLE II--RELATED AGENCIES
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board
Salaries and expenses......................................... 5,015 5,194 5,194 +179 ................
National Transportation Safety Board
Salaries and expenses......................................... 68,000 70,480 72,500 +4,500 +2,020
Emergency supplemental.................................... 650 ................ ................ -650 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................................... 68,650 70,480 72,500 +3,850 +2,020
=========================================================================================
Total, title II, Related Agencies....................... 73,665 75,674 77,694 +4,029 +2,020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reflects pending amendment.